Compare SPAIN and AUSTRIA on their GDP per capita over the last three Essay

Compare SPAIN and AUSTRIA on their GDP per capita over the last three years - Essay Example Spain and Austria indicate a greatly positive linear pattern. The variation surrounding the pattern values are distinguished by a quasi normal distribution with possibly levy distribution for far conclusion. Advancing nations make evident the percentage increase of values far below the average percentage increase for significant advanced economies. This signifies a deficit despite the huge relative development rates. Authentic economic development has been analyzed statistically from the time when Kuznet’s efforts on accounting of national income and collective element inputs were applied. Hodrick and Prescott (1980) brought in a concept of 2 components, initiating a model of 2 component economic development an economic pattern and a variation of business cycle factors. The pattern component is accountable for the long lasting development and describes economic effectiveness. In the end run, the variation component of economic development has to possess a 0 average value. In t he year 2010, shakes of the Global economic crisis let down the Spanish asset bubble leading to an asset collapse. Development trembled and unemployment started to increase. The asset let down brought about a disintegration of credit as banks crashed into huge decreased lending, leading to a depression. As the economy went down, the government revenue crumbled and government debt started to increase fast. By the year 2011 the nation encountered economic problems and was drawn in the European sovereign debt predicament. In the year 2012, the rate of unemployment began to rise again to a record height of 25% (Kitov, 2012). On 25th May 2012, Bankia during this period the 4th leading bank of Spain with 12 million clients, asked for an assistance of â‚ ¬19 billion, the huge bank assistance in the country’s history. The new running by Jose Ignacio Goirigolzarri established losses subsequent to taxes of â‚ ¬4.3 billion (2.98 billion taking into consideration an economic credit ) in comparison to a profit of â‚ ¬328 Million established at what time when Rodrigo Rato was at the top of Bankia till May 9, 2012 (Kitov, 2012). The Austrian Economy has eroded the disaster well at the rear of an export leading recovery. Austria like other nations relying on export economies were hit hard by the crisis however the present recovery efforts present a leading chance to empower change efforts particularly in the following spheres. First, subsidized paths in early retirement need to be removed, secondly work incentives of less skilled employees need to be empowered and their expense of employment decreased. Thirdly, early child care facilities and full day learning should be developed. Fourthly, education restructuring need to advance and finally competition should be advanced in network service industry in addition to liberal fields. These restructuring directions are fundamental for the prospective development performance. This is for the reason that positive exte rior shakes at the back of European incorporation will, in large extent, not advance with similar intensity as in the last 3 years and drivers of development will rely largely on domestic resources. Economic vulnerabilities, while low in global assessment, have advanced. Public economy became worse marked by the crises, led by flexible

Hitlers rule Essay Example for Free

Hitlers rule Essay However, historian Geoff Layton appears to disagree. He states that Although the idea of Nazism as a form of totalitarianism held great sway in the 1950s, such a view is not now so readily accepted. However, he also said that there emerged in the SS an organisation which was the mainstay of the Third Reich which would supports the view that force was the main factor in keeping the Nazi Party in power. This essay intends to analyse the significance of force as a tool to stay n power, through their creation of a Police State, the reformation of the German Courts as well as their elimination of both external and internal political opposition and their indoctrination of the German youth. It will also be necessary to analyse the various other factors which were employed by the Nazi Party between 1931 and 1939 such as control of the economy. Central to the forceful methods the Nazi Party used was undoubtedly their creation of a Police State. The SS, or Schutzstaffeln, was formed in 1925 as an elite bodyguard, due to Hitlers uncertainty regarding the loyalty f the SA, or Sturmabteilung. The SS had several functions, the first of these being as an internal security service. The SS police, the SD, worked in conjunction with the Gestapo to perform arrests and often interrogations by way of torture, and murder on citizens who were viewed as opponents of the regime. A separate sector, the Totenkopfverbande, or Deaths-head Unit, had the duty of guarding the concentration camps. The concentration camps were initially created in 1933 to hold political prisoners and opponents. The SS also provided elite troops who were fanatically loyal o the F?hrer to fght alongside the Wehrmacht. This meant that Germany, and more significantly, the Nazi Party, always had supporters in the army, meaning they were highly unlikely to face mutiny. Crucially, the SS were also in charge of the genocide against Jews, and this was furthered by their status as an example of racial purity. The Police system of Nazi Germany was extremely well organised, though it had many branches and subsections. Initially split into the SS and the Police, there were several further splits. The Police consisted of, of course, the regular Police, however, this also onsisted of the Security Police, under which fell the Criminal Police and, more significantly, the Political Police, or Gestapo. It is no secret that the regime used extreme cruelty as a means of policing, and in fact, Hermann Goring stated that men who used firearms in their duty would benefit from his protection, as well as saying that those who failed in this duty would be punished. In 1936, all of the police powers were united under Heinrich Himmler as Chief of Police. This police force was answerable only to Hitler himself and as such, had considerable powers. It was, ssentially, above the law, as its actions were not open to review by the These extensive powers placed the Gestapo in a strong position of almost boundless authority. If there was any doubt regarding a persons loyalty or ability to fit into the Nazi regime, the Gestapo could punish them as they saw fit. To go against the Party was almost always fatal, and this certainly contributed to the low profile kept by many anti-Nazis. Alongside this went the atmosphere of fear which was prevalent in Nazi Germany. The country under Nazi rule was permeated with Nazi spies and nformers, making it almost impossible to talk openly for fear of being overheard and harshly punished for any oppositional views. In this way, much of the potential opposition to the Nazi regime was suppressed, as it was extremely difficult to share any oppositional views. As such, little opposition was expressed, and this effect was further abetted by the terrible punishments of torture, interrogation and murder which were performed on those citizens who became outspoken. It is also possible to see how far the influence of the SS extended, as historian Andrew Boxer explains that he network of concentration camps became the basis of a vast SS economic empire controlling enterprises involved in quarrying, brick-making, forestry, clothing, furniture and even soft drinks. The SS in itself was far more than a barbaric police division; it was an institution. This is supported by historian Geoff Layton, who says that the SD system not only preserved the Nazi regime by its brutal and repressive policies of law enforcement, but gradually extended its influence into the vital areas of military and economic affairs. In this way it became the key interest group in the Third Reich. However, the power of the SS would have been greatly reduced were it not for the reformation of the German courts. The system known as Independence of the Judiciary requires that the Judicial system is not influenced by politics or the Government, so as to prevent the Government from persecuting opponents through the Justice system. However, in 1933-4, all anti-Nazi and Jewish Judges were sacked to ensure verdicts were in keeping with Nazi ideology. Judges who were thought to have een too lenient or to have misconducted trials were severely admonished, and in some cases, Hitler was known to correct sentences. From 1934, cases of treason were transferred to Peoples Courts which were run by Nazi Judges. This meant, of course, that opponents could be dealt with without any semblance to genuine law. By 1935, people could be tried for Acts hostile to the National Community without having violated any written law. This essentially meant that the Nazis could punish anyone beneath the guise of a legal procedure. People could also be convicted as enemies of the state as a result of their racial origins or their mentality hostile to the state. Two particular concepts were also created, known as protective custody and preventive arrest, which were used to Justify the detention of people who had completed their sentences or who had been acquitted by the regular court. These violations of the Judicial system allowed for the removal of any known or suspected opponents, which helped to secure the Nazi rule. The political measures taken by the Party must also be taken into consideration. Firstly, it is necessary to examine the olitical events outside the party which helped the Nazis to keep power. A political coup for the Nazis was the Reichstag fire of 1933. This destroyed the Parliamentary building and was blamed on a young, Dutch Communist named Marinus van der Lubbe. The man was of questionable sanity and was possibly framed; however the German Communists, including leaders of the German Communist Party on grounds of conspiracy to stage a putsch. This meant that the Nazis managed to increase their share of the vote significantly. In the 1933 election, the rules were significantly bent o favour the Nazis, and the Power of the State was turned against anti-Nazi parties, as the left-wing parties were disadvantaged. Once the Nazi Party was in power, the next step in their political domination was the elimination of any remaining political opposition. The KPD and SPD, both left-wing parties, were banned, and many other parties dissolved themselves. In March 1933, the Nazi Party successfully campaigned for the Enabling Act, which would allow Hitler to govern for four years without consulting the Reichstag. However, at the time of the proposal, the SS were present, hus presenting a distinct threat to those who may vote against it. This was another step along the road to a dictatorship. As of July 1933, a law was passed which stated that the Nazi Party was the only party in the Reich. This meant that there was no other option for the people of Germany. There were no longer any other political parties to replace the Nazis, so the Nazis remained in power. To quote historian Andrew Boxer, German democracy had been destroyed in less than six months. Another central aspect of this internal political change was undoubtedly the Night of he Long Knives, on the 30thof June 1934. This was an internal purge of members of the SA, as Hitler saw them as, in short, too independent. SS men shot around 400 people, including Ernst Rohm, the leader of the SA, and several other senior members. This asserted Hitlers power within the Party, making the Nazi Party inevitably stronger from the inside, as Hitler had removed those whom he suspected may be potentially disloyal, or even simply too free-thinking. The Nazi regime was irrefutably strengthened by the indoctrination of the German youth. Hitler clearly aw the significance of loyal, Nazi youth, saying in a speech in November of 1933: When an opponent declares, l will not come over to your side, l calmly say Your child belongs to us already What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community. This was, though chilling, certainly true, and great focus was placed on youth policy.

Advancement of Medical Procedures from the Civil War

Advancement of Medical Procedures from the Civil War Abstract The question being answered through a wide range of sources is, to what extent did the Civil War deaths caused by surgeries and infections advance evolution in the medical field for future generations? A large variety of medical procedures that exist today seem to be newly introduced to the world of dedicated studies to medicine when in reality those same practices have existed previously and simply have taken on more efficient forms than its predecessors. These methods evolved through the concept of rising demands in the community and urge to be able to provide the most efficient and sanitary idea of completing procedures such as surgeries and amputations. This method and concepts were first introduced in the Civil War where firing weapons had become of mass use to the soldiers in the north and south of the country. These weapons caused tremendous number of injuries, most fatal or life threatening. The only way to save those on the edge of death was risking the introduction of surgi cal methods/opportunities of limb amputation. This idea seemed farfetched at the time of existence but there soldiers had no other option as it was a matter of life or death. This essay touches base on many of these procedures and puts into perspective just how dangerous they were even when trying to save the lives of so many victims. Not only were these methods used in the past but they still are to this day in much more advanced forms having evolved to become more prevalent to victims with all forms of injuries, providing the greatest benefits to them. Over time there have been changes in these procedures thanks to the growing knowledge in the medical field brought upon by these early surgeons who sparked the advancement of medical methods of practice. Introduction Today there exists medical procedures that may have seemed impossible to achieve and yet have been created and are being used effectively. These, of course, did not appear spontaneously. Over the course of the decades, the demand for more efficient medical procedures and tools grew as deaths caused by the inefficiency were far too high. Various events and situations influenced these advancements that shaped the future to be far superior. The only question left to be answered is to what extent did the Civil War deaths caused by surgeries and infections advance evolution in the medical field for future generations? From the stench of dead tissue drifting through the unsanitary, swarmed camps to the unglamorous sicknesses of syphilis and diarrhea, our current views towards Civil War therapeutic practices is greatly supported. While progressed or sterile may not be terms describing pharmaceutical practices in the nineteenth century, current healing center practices and treatment techniques owe much to the legacy of Civil War medication. Of the estimated 620,000 warriors who passed on in the war, 66% of these passings were not the aftermath of the actual gunfire , but rather of a injuries that the gunshots inflicted which werent always lethal. Treating the armies of injured officers pushed Americans to reexamine their speculations on wellbeing and create effective practices to tend to those debilitated and injured. Toward the start of the Civil War, medical equipment and learning was barely up to par with the difficulties postured by the injuries, contaminations and ailments which tormented thousa nds of soldiers on both sides. Diseases like diarrhea, typhoid fever, pneumonia, mumps, measles and tuberculosis spread among the inadequately sterilized camps, were brought on effectively and were debilitated by the injuries and diets. Furthermore, armed forces at first attempted to productively tend to and transport their injured, accidentally giving up more lives to insignificant disruption. For therapeutic specialists in the field during the Civil War, sterile (clean) medicinal practices, proper equipment, and composed hospitalization frameworks were essentially obscure. Medical preparation was barely developing out of the chivalrous time, a period where doctors upheld phlebotomy, cleansing, rankling (or a mix of every one of the three) to rebalance the humors of the body and cure the debilitated. Doctors were additionally regularly urged to treat illnesses like syphilis with mercury, a harmful treatment, no doubt. These forceful cures of the chivalrous time were regularly more awful than patients illnesses themselves; the individuals who defeated disease after the war owed their recuperations to the creativity of contemporary pharmaceuticals than to coarseness and possibility. Fortune was an irregularity in camps where poor sanitation, awful cleanliness and eating regimen reared illness, disease, and passing. Where? The South was the side of the nation most influenced where vast majority of the Civil War battles were fought. The country was a fiasco after the war was thought to be over. It became known as the war where a nation turned on itself. Subjection, states rights, sparing issues and numerous different reasons prompted the grisly war. The North consisted of the countrys industrialized businesses, such as factories with production lines, shops, and so forth. While the opposing South consisted of a horticulture based economy. The South, comprised of many slaves, made greater parts of the agriculture in the entire nation. A large portion of the North was against slavery which was a primary reason the Civil War occurred. Every side needed to developed improvements in hopes of being triumphant, yet both sides additionally knew there would only be one winning side. Evidence shows that one of the reasons of war starting was the race of President Abraham Lincoln. Both the North and South realized that with this race the North would have an upper edge politically in winning this war. In spite the reality of what appeared to be a straightforward contradiction, the war was and will dependably be one of the bloodiest in the historical downfall of the United States yielding a mind-boggling number of around six hundred twenty thousand losses bringing our country to where it stands today (Civil War Medicine, n.d.). Many inquiries are left unanswered like, How might our U.S. look today if the South had won this war? or Would servitude and slavery still exist today? and various others which will remain dependably open without answers since there is nothing available to come to a conclusion. The concentration of this paper is to what extent did the Civil War deaths caused by surgeries and infections advance evolution in the medical field for future generations? It wasnt the bullets themselves In present day times its believed that the worst part of the war were the violent fights in which more lives were lost from injuries, contaminations, and numerous infections rather than the ammunition itself. Despite the fact that the aggregate number of passings from both sides joined was about six hundred and twenty thousand, shockingly more than four hundred thousand of them werent from the battles itself. However, infections and other health issues existed all throughout the Civil War. There are a wide range of factors for every one of the passings of the deceased soldiers that had nothing to do with the fights. As one probably are aware, the innovation that was accessible amid the season of the war was not as cutting edge as the world has today where one knows fundamentally every illness along with the cures. Amid the Civil War time there was no comprehension of contaminations and little done for the counteractive action of them. Before germicides and anti-toxins, a minor injury was commonly lethal (Civil War Medicine and the Battle of Cold Harbor, a.n.d.). As clarified in time recently, a larger number of passings were created by lethal illnesses than shots albeit a few discharges led to contaminations or maladies. Reasons for these deadly illnesses were poor cleanliness in camps of the regiments, absence of proper hospitals, absence of safe housing and legitimate attire, deficiency of sustenance and water, and swarmed camps. These made a lethal blend where infections could easily build up an illness. Regardless of the possibility that there was bare comprehension of these lethal illnesses, a group called the Sanitary Commission formed in order to instruct the Union armed force on legitimate sanitation systems with an end goal to attempt to keep these passings from occurring. A few men wouldnt fret the alerts of the Commission and proceeded with the typical methods of their days in the unsanitary camps. This gathering additionally endeavored to change the methodology for harmed men so they would be more sterile and progressed than what they were. One specialist soon started prompting men in the armed force to avoid greasy sustenances and eating at customary time of day. Men did not focus on the doctors notices and continued with their eating regimens and propensities which comprised of overwhelming, greasy, salty meats, very few vegetables, and unpredictable planning and extent of nourishments or dishes at a wide range of times of day. A dreadfully substantial measure of men originated from fights practically consistently or different occasions with wounds of various sorts. The surges of injured got to be distinctly overpowering, and specialists could just stand to spend a predetermined number of profitable minutes per trooper. The greater part of soldiers, if not all, that had genuine wounds in the middle would just pass on from it. Amid the season of the Civil War, the notorious strategy of surgery known as amputation was essentia lly the last resort. It was a quick however a not extremely powerful approach to take the circumstance. Commonly, this aggravated the injury even more than it was before and it turned out to be dangerous. Numerous men trusted it to be the least demanding approach to make the harm less troublesome despite the fact that it was the most anguishing. To decrease this horrendous agony, chloroform was utilized. This fluid was connected to a material and kept over the nose of the patient until he was oblivious to diminish the torment and injury of the removal. Now and again there wasnt sufficient for each injured man that required offer assistance. The clinics would run low on provisions since there was no chance to get of getting them rapidly. This would happen on the grounds that a considerable measure of chloroform was squandered until Dr. Julian John Chisolm created an inhaler. This worked with the utilization of tubes that trickled with chloroform which acted as successfully and just u tilized one eighth of what it did some time recently. Amputation procedures In 1863, Stonewall Jacksons specialist prescribed the evacuation of his left arm, which had been gravely harmed by well disposed fire. At the point when a chloroform-doused fabric was put over his nose, the Confederate general, in incredible agony, murmured, What an infinite blessing, before going limp. (Cellania, 2012) Because of the immense number of injured at once, specialists got to be distinctly used to the strategy and were more capable at removal. Many could conduct a surgery in around 10 minutes. This was an extraordinary preferred standpoint for both sides since most regiments could just hold maybe a couple therapeutic experts within locations. Since there were numerous removals, some days specialists finished with heaps of appendages and other body parts up to 5 feet high (Medicine in the Civil War, n.d.). In the operating tent, the amputation of a very bad looking leg was witnessed. The surgeons had been laboring since the battle to save the leg, but it was impossible. The patient, a delicate looking man, was put under the influence of chloroform, and the amputation was performed with great skill by a surgeon who appeared to be quite accustomed to the use of his instruments. After the arteries were tied, the amputator scraped the end and edge of the bone until they were quite smooth. While the scraping was going on, an attendant asked: How do you feel, Thompson? Awful! was the distinct and emphatic reply. This answer was returned, although the man was far more sensible of the effects of the chloroform than he was of the amputation. (Coco,1995) In spite of the fact that officers trusted that removal was for the better of their lives, it was extremely perilous. They were correct on the grounds that removal spared a larger number of lives than whatever other techniques by transforming confused wounds into littler and more straightforward ones. Absence of water implied there was no hand washing for specialists between methods expanding the likelihood of diseases. Disregarding these odds, a sum of an expected seventy five percent of amputees recovered. Considerably higher rank fighters needed to experience an indistinguishable agony and surgeries from lower class men did. There was no sort of individual treatment for officers, corporals or other higher positions. Removal caused various passings making contaminations or simply insufferable torment, yet it was not by any means the only motivation of ailment and demise of the men in both sides of the war (Civil War Medicine and the Battle of Cold Harbor, n.d.). Wounds and diseases werent the main ones bringing on the hopeless existences of the men in regiment camps. Nature participated in taking lives (Amputations in Military Surgery, a.n.d.). Amid practice penetrates and walks, men were presented to the brutal climate amid long frosty winters or searing summers. There was no reason to not be in condition for the fight to come. The biting icy of the long winters brought about many troopers to end up distinctly wiped out. The tents they remained in were situated outside and were thin expanding the possibility of disorder among the vast gatherings of individuals in regiments. In the Union Army, for each one man executed in battle, four hundred kicked the bucket of infection and illnesses. Numerous things made deadly illnesses from materials that did not appear to be fatal all alone like microbes, for instance. Microscopic organisms can bring about contamination, malady, and affliction, all with the utilization of germs. Numerous things amid t he season of war conveyed germs. Earth was a quite unsuspected transporter alongside mosquitoes in bogs. On the off chance that an injury is not treated accurately or left untreated by and large, microorganisms and germs may enter which can prompt to discharge. This is an exceptionally unpalatable looking substance that is made in an injury when white cells fight against the germs entering. Ordinarily this could be treated with typical germicide. Earth wasnt the main thing bearing germs and illness. Some living beings additionally contained indications of destructive infections. Flying creatures, domesticated animals, and even little bugs like mosquitoes had the likelihood of being sullied. These deadly mosquitoes conveyed intestinal sickness. Jungle fever wasnt the main dangerous malady transmitted through different creatures. Known illnesses amid the season of taking up arms were measles, mumps, pneumonia, utilization, intestinal sickness, typhoo, loose bowels, the runs, yellow fe ver, scurvy, and venereal infections (King, n.d.). Without the correct medicines or solution, none of these lethal illnesses could be cured and ordinarily, even with prescription, wiped out individuals couldnt be cured. These drugs utilized on occasion did not contain the perfect measure of something or a lot of something else and the specialist or specialist would not know or have the capacity to discover. Different circumstances it simply was not sufficiently solid to battle against the illnesses. Medication amid this event was totally unique in relation to how we see it today. Things were obscure that could have spared many lives amid that time. Reports from specialists, specialists, or whatever other sort of right hand in doctors facilities demonstrated numerous setbacks because of the reason for not knowing how to treat a patient the right way. Bourbon, barony, and strychnine, were utilized as stimulants for revues and circulatory framework. For nourishing backing, meat extrica te, espresso, consolidated drain, dark tea, ferrous, mixes, were utilized as cures for iron deficiency. Solutions appeared like ordinary officer counts calories various circumstances for various medications. On account of venereal infection, calomel was utilized for mouth as salve and connected to injuries or different alternatives would be infusions of silver nitrate, zinc, or chloride of potash, otherwise called potassium chloride. Patients with intestinal sickness were treated with quinine alone with spirits of nitre and potassium iodine. For skin issues a straightforward fragrance was utilized and bromine as an alleviating operator. Chloride was put in wounds for purging or stimulants. In spite of the fact that men would shout in torment, it showed advance in the disease rates now that they were bringing down. Kidney issues were a noteworthy occasion in the war with all the slug wounds in the middle region of men furthermore shots in the stomach. These were treated with spirits of alkali, and potassium. Regardless of the possibility that officers did not have a sickness, specialists and specialists did what they could to avert them (King, n.d.). Unsanitary Sanitation At the point when an officer was gotten the camp with ordinary injuries, they were fixed with mortars with different specialists like mustard or belladonna which was then spread on material or consistent paper to be connected to the skin close by the injury. This came to show that it was so compelling to seal the injuries as opposed to leave the wounds open with the high danger of contaminations prompting to illnesses much nearly took after by death. This could happen quickly with the condition or the unpleasant camps where there was not one thing hinting at a rational soundness. Swarms of flies could be seen bugging in each settlement and doctors facility. The flies were thought to be lethal or simply unsanitary, however it was demonstrated off-base. Flies would store their eggs in open injuries of the officers or different patients. Before long the eggs developed and larvae were conceived. These hatchlings did not bring about torment but rather did in actuality clean injuries of th e troopers by eating dead or contaminated skin. The specialists soon began imagining that these hatchlings could have great advantages in averting contaminations of wounds. Rats additionally worked similarly hatchlings did by consuming the dead tissue left. Before long, many medical attendants and other individuals got to be distinctly sickened in this strategy utilized despite the fact that it was viable as a part of most cases (Bollet, 2002). Who was in charge? Surgeons, doctors, nurses, and even assistants played great roles in the Civil War. These were the people who made these procedures possible. Many lives were spared with their insight, strategies, and disclosures. Individuals in the present say that this was a time where numerous medicines and solutions were found that can and are utilized even today. Warriors were enlivened by these lifelines, as they were known for what they did. Some even accepted the open door when they could and got to be specialists or specialists themselves. Union colonel, Thomas Reynolds, was harmed in fight, which lead to having to go through amputation.. Reynolds survived removal and later turned into an educator of surgery and afterward remarked on the act of pointing the finger at specialists for performing numerous superfluous removals which individuals accepted brought on more loss of lives than there ought to have been while others concur it was ideal to endeavor of sparing lives (Bollet, 2001). Specia lists who concurred said that they spared lives and inability to perform important removal made potential outcomes of deadly disease. There was truly no other decision for the men in both sides of the armed force or the specialists themselves since removal was the main surgery accessible. In the North, over a sum of thirty thousand removals were finished with an expected same sum for the Confederates situated in the South. Real surgery was uncommon in light of the fact that disease was all the time a case trailing it. Accordingly, somewhere around 1836 and 1846, a sum of thirty nine surgical strategies were performed at the Massachusetts General Hospital. In the initial 10 years after the introduction of anesthesia, 1847 through 1857, the yearly normal was around one hundred and eighty five, of which 60% were removals. Indeed, even with innovation and medication advancing, surgery was still occasionally utilized or performed. Regardless of the possibility that surgery was important, never was the belly or mid-section of a man opened amid the system. Many of the surgeons in the Civil War had never witnessed a major amputation when they joined the regiments and very few of them had treated gunshot wounds. (Bollet, 2006) Statistics A normal of two thousand four hundred twenty seven methods was done every year at the doctors facility somewhere around 1894 and 1904, yet by 1914 this expanded to more than four thousand. Numerous Civil War specialists that partook in therapeutic techniques on men in the armed forces lived to see improvements and progressions long after the war. These individuals saw and saw the absence of arrangement for treating vast quantities of injured men that they got after fights. Numerous more lives could have been spared considering the way that there were more progressions in restorative methods before long. Around a quarter century of patients were lost altogether from not having the capacity to recuperate after their surgery. In spite of the absence of arrangement for therapeutic strategies amid the war, Union specialists treated more than four hundred thousand injured men of whom an expected two hundred forty five thousand of them were injured from firearm shots or other cannons wounds. Specialists depicted the scenes of them men pouring in as awful where bones were standing out, tissue was gone, or possibly the damage was inner and everything looked typical on the outside of the fighter. Operations were performed in no less than four hundred thousand of all harmed cases. As the war seethed on, more specialists started joining both sides of the armed forces in fight for employments. Toward the begin of the Civil War, the Union Army comprised of one hundred thirteen specialists of which twenty four were rejected and joined the Confederate Army. Throughout the war, formal and casual surgical preparing projects were created for new specialists joining either side. These specialists quickly created abilities and information that enhanced techniques. Before the end of the war, more than twelve thousand specialists had served the Union and around three thousand in the Confederacy. Considering the 66% of the entire passing number of infection or disorder, genuinely a huge sum still passed on from the fight shots discharged from both sides. An assortment of weapons were utilized amid the war, which additionally incorporated an assortment of ammo for every weapon filling various needs. A well known ammo sort was the minie all which was a round discharged from rifles and were generally moderate moving. Indeed, even little shots like that could deliver destructive harm. At the point when the body was struck at the bone the speed of the shot did not permit a perfect leave leaving expansive injuries ordinarily. Comminuted breaks were a dangerous kind of harm. This sort of damage happens when the bone is either, broken, fragmented or smashed into many pieces. Ordinarily this would happen when a shot was discharged and infiltrated joints, for example, the knee, elbow, bear, wrist, lower leg, and hip. Be that as it may, shots were likewise discharged and hit in the face zone leaving a change forever. Facial recreation additionally started amid the Civil War. It started when a private was surviving pneumonia however it decimated his face and specialists took a stab at making it look ordinary utilizing plastic surgery. The methodology helped however it didnt look 100% the same, nor was it conceivable to do as such. Today These procedures exist with much greater value and purpose to this day as there exists professions focusing on these specific jobs to be able to focus on the enhancement of the methods of practice to provide the most efficient management of work for the those in need of help. This new procedures have provided faster healing rates, greater chances of survival, decreased blood loss, and most importantly, increased life expectancy. A sum of more than 66% of the passing tally were from malady and infection which is interesting knowing the Civil War was one of the bloodiest wars in U.S. history. The lives of many overcome officers that left homes, families, dreams, and numerous more things, were relinquished keeping in mind the end goal was the attempt of setting the nation straight. These men battled with respect with the idea in their mind that they were doing it for the country, their country. They battled dauntlessly. Tragically, most of the men experienced a long and agonizing injury prompting to a demise they didnt merit. The war finished in 1865 and subjection was at long last nullified however the cost was high. Abraham Lincoln was killed days after by a man by the name of Booth, who was irritated. The Civil War was the most expensive war in American History, and it has remained an important piece of our history, with the goal that we may recollect dependably that fighting within itself, a country is set to fail. Going from wounds and ailment was an additional weight of the war that brought about noteworthy harm on the hearts, brains, and gatherings of all Americans, yet it in like manner quickened the development of arrangement and affected practices the equipped drive and surgeons still use today. While the Union emphatically had the upside of better remedial supplies and work, both sides attempted to fight disorder and improve helpful tend to their officers in the midst of the war. Tremendous quantities of Americas available day restorative accomplishments have their hidden establishments in the legacy of Americas describing war. Work Cited Amputations in Military Surgery Civil War Medical Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. http://www.civilwarmedicalbooks.com/civil_war_amputation.html Bollet, Alfred JAY. Civil War Medicine Alfred J. Bollet, M.D. Civil War Medicine Alfred J. Bollet, M.D. Galen Press, 2001. Web. 16 Dec. 2012. Bollet, Alfred J. Medical Book Extras Maggots and Rats: Natures Surgeons During the Civil War. Galen Press, 2002. Web. 16 Dec. 2012. www.galenpress.com/extras/extras.31.htm Bollet, Alfred J. The Truth About Civil War Surgery. History Net Where History Comes Alive World US History Online The Truth About Civil War Surgery Comments. Weider History Group, 12 June 2006. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. . Cellania, Miss. Neatorama. Neatorama. N.p., 20 Jan. 2012. Web. 14 Dec. 2012. Civil War Medicine and the Battle of Cold Harbor. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2012. http://collectmedicalantiques.com/gallery/civil-war-medicine-and-the-battle-of-cold- harbor>. Civil War Medicine. Civil War Medicine. N.p., 2003-2008. Web. 23 Nov. 2012. . Coco, Gregory A. A Strange and Blighted Land: Gettysburg : The Aftermath of a Battle. Gettysburg, PA: Thomas Publications, 1995. Print. King, Janet. Vermont Civil War. Vermont Civil War. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. . Medicine in the Civil War. American Civil War Medical and Surgical History. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Dec. 2012. .

Langston Hughes Uses Poetry as a Tool for Self Discovery :: Biography Biographies Essays

Langston Hughes Uses Poetry as a Tool for Self Discovery When Langston Hughes was given this assignment by his college professor, he used it at a self discovery tool. I think this poem is merely letting him dig into himself to find out who he really is, and what his role is in society. Go home and write a page tonight. And let that page come out of you-- Then, it will be true. We could all take advice from this teacher. I don't think that the professor's words are to be taken very literally, as I know some of the other close readings will discuss. I think that the reason this assignment was given was to allow the students, or Hughes himself, to recognize some of the things about himself that he had never known or faced before. Sometimes when we write for someone else or for a specific class, we focus solely on what we are writing about and we tend to block off any part of ourselves that would escape onto the pages. In contrast, when we write in a journal, or freewrite, we tend to let all of our emotions out, and it is a way for some of us to deal with issues that are facing us, on a day to day basis. This is a way to get to know yourself better, and a way to deal with anger and unsettled emotions. Basically, I think the teacher wanted this assignment to be simple. He or she merely wanted the next assignment to be more personal, which Hughes took to that level if not beyond what was expected. From this poem I think we learn a lot about Hughes as a person, compared to some of his other works. Many of his other poems generalize the black man as an entire society, and in this poem we see the black man as Hughes himself, which to me, was very interesting. He lets us take a closer look into his life, and we are able to understand more of his heritage, and the things that inspire him, as a person, and as a writer. For example, in the very first stanza of the poem, he explains to us where he was born, where he was raised, and where he lives now, which is very important in understanding where someone gets their beliefs.

Quality of Education

10 A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Alan Januszewski h e State University of New York at Potsdam Kay A. Persichitte University of Wyoming Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to provide a historical context for the current dei nition of educational technology. We will do this in several stages. First, we will review the primary purposes and considerations for dei ning educational technology. h en, we will review each of the four previous dei nitions, paying particular attention to the primary concepts included in each dei nition.We will examine the context and rationales for decisions made regarding each of these primary concepts. We will also present some of the historical criticisms of the dei nitions which provided the impetus for changing the dei nitions. h e criteria and purposes for producing a dei nition were discussed at the time of the writing of the i rst dei nition in 1963. A satisfactory dei nition of instructional technology wil l let us i nd common ground, will propose tomorrow’s horizons, and will allow for a variety of patterns that specii c individuals may follow in specii c institutions . . Research must be designed in terms of clear understanding of instructional technology. Superintendents of schools are requesting criteria for new personnel ER5861X_C010. indd 259 ER5861X_C010. indd 259 8/16/07 6:24:22 PM 8/16/07 6:24:22 PM260 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE needed in various phases of instructional improvement. Teacher-education institutions need assistance in planning courses for pre-service and in-service instruction that will provide the skills and understanding which will be required in tomorrow’s classrooms . . Let us consider the criteria for useful dei nitions. h ey should (a) clarify the description of the i eld in ordinary language; (b) summarize existing knowledge; (c) mediate applications of knowledge to new situations; and (d) lead to fruitful lines of experimental inquiry. . . . h is report aims to provide a working dei nition for the i eld of instructional technology which will serve as a framework for future developments and lead to an improvement in instruction. (Ely, 1963, pp. –8) h ose involved in the writing of the 1963 dei nition obviously believed that there were a lot of things to consider when dei ning educational technology. Or put dif erently, the existence of such a dei nition would have far reaching consequences, sometimes with implications that the authors might not intend. Acknowledging this opened the door to criticisms of the dei – nitions and the purposes cited for redei ning educational technology. h e authors of subsequent dei nitions all seemed to adhere, at least in part, to the purposes and criteria identii ed in the 1963 dei nition.The 1963 Definition h e leadership of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) recognized the 1963 dei nition of audiovisual communications as the i rst formal dei nition of educational technology (AECT, 1977). h is dei nition, the i rst in a series of four oi cially sanctioned dei nitions, was developed by the Commission on Dei nition and Terminology of the Department of Audiovisual Instruction (DAVI) of the National Education Association (NEA) and supported by the Technological Development Project (TDP).In 1963 audiovisual communications was the label that was used to describe the i eld as it was evolving from the audiovisual education movement to educational technology: Audiovisual communications is that branch of educational theory and practice primarily concerned with the design and use of messages which control the learning process. It undertakes: (a) the study of the unique and relative strengths and weaknesses of both pictorial and nonrepresentational messages which may be employed in the learning process for any purpose; and (b) the structuring and systematizing of messages by men and instruments in an educational environment. es e undertakings ER5861X_C010. indd 260 ER5861X_C010. indd 260 8/16/07 6:24:23 PM 8/16/07 6:24:23 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 261 include the planning, production, selection, management, and utilization of both components and entire instructional systems. Its practical goal is the ei cient utilization of every method and medium of communication which can contribute to the development of the learner’s full potential. (Ely, 1963, pp. 18–19) A footnote that was included as part of this dei nition read â€Å"the audiovisual communications label is used at this time as an expedient.Another designation may evolve, and if it does, it should then be substituted† (p. 18). Conceptual Shit s Signaled in Dei nitions h ere are three major conceptual shit s that contributed to the formulation of the dei nitions of educational technology as a theory: (1) the use of a â€Å"process† concept rather than a â€Å"product† concept; (2) the use of the terms messages and media instrumentation rather than materials and machines; and (3) the introduction of certain elements of learning theory and communication theory (Ely, 1963, p. 19).Understanding these three ideas and their impact on each other is essential to understanding the idea of educational technology in 1963. A technological conception of the audiovisual i eld called for an emphasis on process, making the traditional product concept of the i eld of educational technology untenable. h e Commission believed, â€Å"h e traditional product concept in the audiovisual i eld views the ‘things’ of the i eld by identifying machines, use of particular senses, and characteristics of materials by degrees of abstractness and/or concreteness† (Ely, 1963, p. 19).Members of the Commission preferred a process concept of the i eld which included â€Å"the planning, production, selection, management, and utilization of both components and ent ire instructional systems† (p. 19). h is process conception also emphasized â€Å"the relationship between events as dynamic and continuous† (p. 19). h e Commission argued that â€Å"materials† and â€Å"machines† were â€Å"things† or products and opted not to use those terms in the dei nition. Instead, the Commission used the terms messages and instruments. h e Commission further argued that materials and machines were interdependent elements. A motion picture and projector are inseparable as are all other materials requiring machines for their use† (Ely, 1963, p. 19). One was of little practical use without the other. h e Commission used the concept of media instrumentation to explain instruments. h e Commission said, â€Å"Media-instrumentation indicates the ER5861X_C010. indd 261 ER5861X_C010. indd 261 8/16/07 6:24:23 PM 8/16/07 6:24:23 PM262 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE transmission systems, the materials and devices available to carry s elected messages† (Ely, 1963, p. 20). e concept of media instrumentation also included the people who utilized the instruments in the educational environment as well as the transmission systems. h e idea that both people and instruments comprised media instrumentation was based in the broader concept of the man-machine system (Finn, 1957). In discussions of the relationship and integration of learning theory and communications theory to instructional technology, the Commission stated, â€Å"Certain elements of learning theory and communications theory of er potential contributions [to the i eld of educational technology]; e. . , source, message, channel, receiver, ef ects, stimulus, organism, response† (Ely, 1963, p. 20). h e Commission integrated learning theory and communications theory by identifying and combining the two systems basic to the process view of the i eld: the learning-communicant system and the educational-communicant system. h ese two systems use conce pts from both learning and communications theories that delineated and specii ed the roles of the individuals involved in the use of these systems. e learnercommunicant system â€Å"refers to the student population† and the educationalcommunicant system â€Å"refers to the professional persons in the school† (p. 23). h ese two systems could be of any size, ranging from a single classroom to large school systems (Ely, 1963). Merging the two communicant systems into a single model of the educational process provided the i eld of audiovisual communications with a theoretical framework (Ely, 1963) and a model that allowed educational technology to be viewed as a theoretical construct (AECT, 1977). e fundamental doctrine advanced by the writers of the i rst dei nition was that it was a â€Å"branch of educational theory and practice. † h e word theory was particularly important in this dei nition because it had a special place in the history of the audiovisual i eld, because of the status that it conferred on the i eld, and because of the expectation for further research to inl uence the evolution of that theory. Finn’s Characteristics of a Profession e 1963 dei nition was heavily inl uenced by James Finn’s (1953) six characteristics of a profession: (a) An intellectual technique, (b) an application of that technique to the practical af airs of man, (c) a period of long training necessary before entering into the profession, (d) an association of the members of the profession into a closely knit group with a high quality of communication ER5861X_C010. indd 262 ER5861X_C010. indd 262 8/16/07 6:24:24 PM 8/16/07 6:24:24 PM10.A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 263 between members, (e) a series of standards and a statement of ethics which is enforced, and (f) an organized body of intellectual theory constantly expanded by research. (p. 7) Of these six characteristics of a profession, Finn (1953) argued that â€Å"the most fundamental and most important characteristic of a profession is that the skills involved are founded upon a body of intellectual theory and research† (p. 8). Having established the importance of theory and research for a profession, Finn further explained his position by saying that â€Å". . this systematic theory is constantly being expanded by research and thinking within the profession† (p. 8). Finn was arguing that a profession conducts its own research and theory development to complement the research and theory development that it adapts/adopts from other academic areas. If educational technology was to be a true profession, it would have to conduct its own research and develop and its own theory rather than borrowing from more established disciplines like psychology.Finn (1953) evaluated the audiovisual i eld against each of the six characteristics and determined that the audiovisual i eld did not meet the most fundamental characteristic: an organized body of intellectual theory and research. â€Å"When the audiovisual i eld is measured against this characteristic . . . the conclusion must be reached that professional status has not been attained† (Finn, 1953, p. 13). h is argument was largely accepted by, and had a profound ef ect on, the leadership of the audiovisual i eld in the late 1950s and early 1960s.Finn (1953) laid a foundation that the audiovisual i eld was troubled by a â€Å"lack of theoretical direction† (p. 14). He attributed this to a â€Å"lack of content† and the absence of â€Å"intellectual meat† (p. 14) in the contemporary meetings and professional journals of the i eld. In his argument promoting the development of a theoretical base for the audiovisual i eld, Finn warned, Without a theory which produces hypotheses for research, there can be no expanding knowledge and technique.And without a constant attempt to assess practice so that the theoretical implications may b e teased out, there can be no assurance that we will ever have a theory or that our practice will make sense. (p. 14) Finn dedicated his career to rectifying this dei ciency in the i eld, and the resulting impact of his work on the 1963 dei nition is evident. Advancing an argument that audiovisual communications was a theory was an attempt to address the â€Å"lack of content† cited by Finn (1953). e Commission identii ed â€Å"the planning, production, selection, management, and utilization of both components and entire instructional systems† (Ely, ER5861X_C010. indd 263 ER5861X_C010. indd 263 8/16/07 6:24:24 PM 8/16/07 6:24:24 PM264 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE 1963, p. 19) as tasks performed by practitioners in the i eld directly related to Finn’s (1953) discussion of the â€Å"intellectual technique† of the audiovisual i eld—Finn’s i rst criterion for a profession. e i rst oi cial dei nition of educational technology can be viewed as an a ttempt to bring together remnants of theory, technique, other academic research bases, and history contained in the audiovisual literature, into a logical statement closing the gap on the â€Å"poverty of thought† (Finn, 1953, p. 13) that characterized the audiovisual education movement. h e evolution of audiovisual communications (and later, educational technology) as a theory began to add â€Å"intellectual meat† to audiovisual practice.By merging the audiovisual communications concept with the process orientation of the i eld into a new intellectual technique grounded in theory, the Commission strengthened the professional practice and of ered a direction for further growth as a profession. Emergence of a Process View Included among the many factors contributing to the development of the process view of educational technology were the two beliefs held by the most inl uential and prominent individuals involved with the audiovisual i eld: (1) that technology was prima rily a process (Finn, 1960b) and (2) that communication was a process (Berlo, 1960; Gerbner, 1956). e conceptual view of educational technology as a way of thinking and a process was established by the 1963 dei nition. h e intention of the Commission that produced the i rst oi cial dei nition of the i eld was â€Å"to dei ne the broader i eld of instructional technology which incorporates certain aspects of the established audiovisual i eld† (Ely, 1963, p. 3). Not unexpectedly, the 1963 dei nition drew some critique as it was applied to the emerging i eld of the 1960s and 1970s.Prominent individuals involved with audiovisual education, such as James Finn (1957; 1960a) and Charles Hoban (1962), had previously used the term technology when referring to the activities of the audiovisual i eld. Donald Ely (1973; 1982) observed that the use of the word control in the 1963 dei nition was problematic for many individuals involved with educational technology. Ely (1982) explained, â €Å"h e strong behavioral emphasis at the time seemed to call for the word ‘control’† (p. 3).He noted that the word facilitate was substituted by many professionals â€Å"to make the dei nition more palatable† (Ely, 1973, p. 52). Perhaps equally important was the desire by members of the i eld to move away from a behaviorally based psychology to a more humanistic psychology (Finn, 1967). ER5861X_C010. indd 264 ER5861X_C010. indd 264 8/16/07 6:24:24 PM 8/16/07 6:24:24 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 265 Criticisms of the 1963 Dei nition As noted in the introduction, no one dei nition can be the dei nition, and there were criticisms of the 1963 dei nition.James Knowlton (1964), a faculty member at Indiana University, was a consultant for the 1963 Commission on Dei nition and Terminology. In an essay that reviewed the 1963 dei nition, Knowlton stated that the dei nition itself was â€Å"couched in semiotical termsâ €  (p. 4) but that the conceptual structure used in the rationale for the 1963 dei nition â€Å"was couched in learning theory terms [and] this disjunction produced some surprising anomalies† (p. 4). Knowlton’s argument was based on a need for conceptual and semantic consistency in the dei nition.Knowlton argued that failing to pair the language of the dei nition with the language of the conceptual structure in the rationale resulted in a general lack of clarity about this new concept. h is lack of clarity in turn caused confusion in the direction of research and practice in the i eld. Less than a decade later, Robert Heinich (1970) saw a need to redei ne the i eld of educational technology for two reasons. First, he was critical of the â€Å"communications† based language used in the 1963 dei nition. Heinich argued that this language was too complicated for school personnel to interpret and apply.Second, Heinich argued that the power to make many of the deci sions regarding the use of technology in schools should be transferred from the teacher to the curriculum planners. Heinich’s argument for changing the dei nition was based on both linguistic concerns and evolutionary changes in the functions of practitioners in the i eld. Heinich promoted an approach to schooling where specialists would decide when and where schools would use technology. h is position was dif erent from that which was discussed in the rationale for the 1963 dei – nition.In the rationale for the 1963 dei nition, teachers were viewed as partners of educational technologists rather than as their subordinates (Januszewski, 2001). Forces Impelling a New Dei nition Other contemporary issues emerged which began to inl uence the i eld. h e report of the Presidential Commission on Instructional Technology (1970) stated that instructional technology could be dei ned in two ways: In its more familiar sense it means the media born of the communications revolution which can be used for instructional purposes alongside the teacher, textbook and blackboard.In general, the Commission’s report follows this usage . . . the commission has had to look at the pieces that ER5861X_C010. indd 265 ER5861X_C010. indd 265 8/16/07 6:24:25 PM 8/16/07 6:24:25 PM266 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE make up instructional technology: television, i lms, overhead projectors, computers and the other items of â€Å"hardware and sot ware. † (p. 19) h e second and less familiar dei nition . . . (Instructional technology) . . . s a systematic way of designing, carrying out, and evaluating the total process of learning and teaching in terms of specii c objectives, based on research in human learning and communication and employing a combination of human and nonhuman resources to bring about more ef ective instruction. (Commission on Instructional Technology, 1970, p. 19) Educational technology professionals responded to this report in a special section of Audi ovisual Communications Review (1970). h e professional reviews of the government report were mixed at best. Ely (Ely et al. 1970) of Syracuse University thought that the Commission’s overall ef ort was commendable given its lot y charge. Earl Funderburk (Ely et al. , 1970) of the NEA called the recommendations a balanced program. But David Engler (Ely et al. , 1970) of the McGraw-Hill Book Company disapproved of the Commission’s ef ort to relegate the process-based dei nition of instructional technology to some â€Å"future† role. Leslie Briggs (Ely et al. , 1970) of Florida State University accused the Presidential Commission of providing a â€Å"two-headed image† of instructional technology by stressing both a hardware and a process orientation of the concept. e contributors to this special section of Audiovisual Communications Review (1970) were generally dissatisi ed with the â€Å"two-headed† orientation primarily because of the confusion it m ight cause among the potential client groups of educational technology. h ey viewed the hardware orientation favored by the Presidential Commission as a setback for the profession. It meant the unacceptable return to the â€Å"audiovisual aids† and â€Å"technology as machine† conceptions of educational technology. h is orientation also implied the de-emphasizing of research and theory.Given these professional discussions and developments, professionals in the i eld believed that a new dei nition of educational technology was necessary. The 1972 Definition By 1972, through evolution and mutual agreement, the DAVI had become the AECT. Along with the organizational change came a change to the dei nition. ER5861X_C010. indd 266 ER5861X_C010. indd 266 8/16/07 6:24:25 PM 8/16/07 6:24:25 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 267 h e newly formed AECT dei ned the term educational technology rather than the term audiovisual communications a sEducational technology is a i eld involved in the facilitation of human learning through the systematic identii cation, development, organization and utilization of a full range of learning resources and through the management of these processes. (Ely, 1972, p. 36) As a member of the group that wrote several of the early drat s of the 1972 dei nition, Kenneth Silber (1972) was successful in including changes in many of the roles and functions of the practitioners of the i eld as part of that dei nition.Silber introduced the term learning system which combined ideas of the open classroom movement with some of the concepts of educational technology. Like Heinich’s (1970) perspective, Silber’s (1972) â€Å"learning system† (p. 19) suggested changes in the roles of the teacher and the educational technologist. Unlike Heinich, Silber supported the idea that learners should make many decisions regarding the use of educational technology themselves. Educational techno logists would produce a variety of programs and designs that learners would use or adapt to meet their own â€Å"long-range learning destination† (p. 1). Silber’s position was that the teacher should be more a â€Å"facilitator of learning† and less a â€Å"teller of information. † A Dei nition Based on h ree Concepts h ere are three concepts central to the 1972 dei nition characterizing educational technology as a i eld: a broad range of learning resources, individualized and personalized learning, and the use of the systems approach. â€Å"It is these three concepts, when synthesized into a total approach to facilitate learning, that create the uniqueness of, and thus the rationale for, the i eld† (Ely, 1972, p. 7). Examining these three concepts along with the idea of educational technology as a â€Å"i eld† is crucial to understanding the AECT’s (1972) dei nition of educational technology. It is particularly important to recognize that dif erent interpretations of these three concepts would result in dif ering conceptions of the i eld through the next three decades. h e dif erent interpretations and relative emphases of these concepts were due in large part to dif erences in educational philosophy and educational goals.Dif ering interpretations of these concepts would also have the more visible ef ect of substantially dif erent products and processes developed in the i eld. h e writers of the 1972 dei nition seemed to be aware that the major concepts could be interpreted dif erently, and they seemed to be interested ER5861X_C010. indd 267 ER5861X_C010. indd 267 8/16/07 6:24:26 PM 8/16/07 6:24:26 PM268 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE in including individuals with dif erent philosophical and academic backgrounds in the i eld. e writers of the 1963 dei nition and its supporting rationale seemed less concerned with accommodating divergent educational philosophies. Perhaps this was due to the fact that the 1963 dei n ition was the i rst formal attempt to dei ne educational technology. Such an under taking was formidable enough. Perhaps it was because the writers of the 1972 dei – nition paid more attention to the discussions of educational philosophy in the literature from the rest of the i eld of education.Perhaps it was because the 1963 dei nition viewed educational technology as an educational theory and, potentially, as an educational philosophy itself. Regardless, there is no doubt that by 1972, the authors of the dei nition of educational technology chose to consider educational technology a i eld of study and not as a specii c theory (Januszewski, 1995, 2001). Educational Technology as a Field h e decision to refer to educational technology as a i eld of study rather than a theory or a branch of theory had at least four results: (1) we acknowledged that there was more than one theory of educational technology, ore than one way to think about the role(s) of educational technology; ( 2) the dei nition prompted signii cant philosophical discussions by members of the profession; (3) the use of the word i eld encompassed both the â€Å"hardware† and â€Å"process† orientations of instructional technology described by the Presidential Commission (1970); and (4) this dei nition was based on the â€Å"tangible elements† (Ely, 1972) that people could observe. e 1972 dei nition essentially dei ned educational technology by role and function rather than as an abstract concept, as was the case for the 1963 dei nition, where educational technology was viewed as a theory. h e concept of â€Å"i eld† has been a thorny one for educational technologists. Like many areas of study within education, it is very dii cult to discuss educational technology without using the word i eld as a descriptor. Certainly audiovisual professionals used the term to describe the â€Å"audiovisual i eld† before the terms instructional technology or educational te chnology were ever used. e 1963 dei nition statement frequently used i eld (Ely, 1963) to move the discussion along, even though it was argued that educational technology was a theory or branch of theory. On the surface, the use of i eld seems a rather inescapable semantic problem when speaking of educational technology. But it is signii cant that the writers of the 1972 dei nition chose to use i eld rather than theory in the dei nition because the use of the word i eld established a territory. It also provided certain legitimacy to ef orts to advance ER5861X_C010. ndd 268 ER5861X_C010. indd 268 8/16/07 6:24:26 PM 8/16/07 6:24:26 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 269 both products and processes. h e consequences of this decision were anticipated by Finn (1965), who proclaimed Properly constructed, the concept of instructional or educational technology is totally integrative. It provides a common ground for all professionals, no matter in what aspect of the i eld they are working: it permits the rational development and integration of new devices, materials, and methods as they come along. e concept is so completely viable that it will not only provide new status for our group, but will, for the i rst time, threaten the status of others [italics added]. (p. 193) Criticism of the 1972 Dei nition h e 1972 dei nition was not the object of numerous criticisms as was the 1963 dei nition, probably because it was considered only an interim dei nition (Ely, 1994). Only one such article appeared in the literature of the i eld of educational technology—a critique was written by Dennis Myers, then a graduate student at Syracuse University, and Lida Cochran, a faculty member at the University of Iowa (Myers & Cochran, 1973). e brief analysis by Myers and Cochran (1973) articulated at least i ve dif erent criticisms. First, they proposed including a statement in the rationale for the dei nition stating that students have a rig ht of access to technological delivery systems as part of their regular instruction. Including such a statement follows from Hoban’s (1968) discussion on the appropriateness of technology for instruction in a technological society. Second, Myers and Cochran argued that the 1972 dei nition statement was weakened by neglecting to include a theoretical rationale for the dei nition. is criticism, which correctly pointed out that the dei nition is lacking a unii ed theoretical direction, supported Heinich’s (1970) assertions in his philosophical view of the i eld. In a third point, Myers and Cochran (1973) criticized the limited role that the educational technologist was provided in the description of the systems approach provided in the dei nition. In a fourth point, they discussed the shortcomings of the terminology used to discuss the domains and roles in educational technology.Perhaps the most interesting point made in this analysis concerned the relationship of educati onal technology to the rest of the i eld of education. In noting the problem of dei ning the i eld by the functions performed, Myers and Cochran (1973) pointed to the importance of considering the purpose of education. ER5861X_C010. indd 269 ER5861X_C010. indd 269 8/16/07 6:24:26 PM 8/16/07 6:24:26 PM270 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE What is important is that certain functions get done in education. h at generalization is important because it conveys an attitude that transcends narrow professional nterests and strikes a note of community and cooperativeness, qualities which are essential to the solution of problems facing education and society. (p. 13) Here, Myers and Cochran (1973) seemed to be chastising the writers of the 1972 dei nition for being overly concerned with intellectual territory and the roles performed in the i eld of educational technology. h is particular criticism lost only a little of its sharpness when it was viewed in light of earlier comments made about the inap propriateness of the limited role assigned to educational technologists in the dei nition (Januszewski, 2001).In summary, by 1972, the name of the concept had changed from audiovisual communications to educational technology. h e organizational home for professionals in the i eld had changed name: from DAVI to AECT. h ere had been substantial changes in our schools, hardware, and other technological innovations during the nine years since the writing of the i rst dei nition. Educational technology was now identii ed as a i eld of study, open to interpretation by those who practiced within it. e 1972 dei nition rel ected these interpretations but was intended to be only a temporary measure. Almost as soon as it was published, work began on the next dei nition. The 1977 Definition In 1977, the AECT revised its dei nition of educational technology with its third version: Educational technology is a complex, integrated process, involving people, procedures, ideas, devices and organizati on, for analyzing problems and devising, implementing, evaluating and managing solutions to those problems, involved in all aspects of human learning.In educational technology, the solution to problems takes the form of all the Learning Resources that are designed and/or selected and/or utilized to bring about learning; these resources are identii ed as Messages, People, Materials, Devices, Techniques, and Settings. h e processes for analyzing problems, and devising, implementing and evaluating solutions are identii ed by the Educational Development Functions of Research h eory, Design, Production, Evaluation Selection, Logistics, Utilization, and Utilization Dissemination. h e processes of directing or coordinating one or more of hese functions are identii ed by the Educational Management Functions of Organizational Management and Personnel Management. (AECT, 1977, p. 1) ER5861X_C010. indd 270 ER5861X_C010. indd 270 8/16/07 6:24:27 PM 8/16/07 6:24:27 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECTâ₠¬â„¢S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 271 h e Dei nition of Educational Technology (AECT, 1977) was a 169-page book intended to accomplish two things: (a) systematically analyze the complex ideas and concepts that were used in the i eld of educational technology, and (b) show how these concepts and ideas related to one another (Wallington, 1977). is publication included the dei nition of educational technology (which comprises 16 pages of the text), a history of the i eld, a rationale for the dei nition, a theoretical framework for the dei nition, a discussion of the practical application of the intellectual technique of the i eld, the code of ethics of the professional organization, and a glossary of terms related to the dei nition. Educational Versus Instructional Technology h e conceptual dif erence between the terms educational technology and instructional technology constituted a large portion of the analysis of this book.Understanding how the authors of the 1977 dei niti on viewed the relationship of instructional technology to educational technology is essential to understanding the 1977 dei nition and its theoretical framework. h e basic premise of this distinction was that instructional technology was to educational technology as instruction was to education. h e reasoning was that since instruction was considered a subset of education then instructional technology was a subset of educational technology (AECT, 1977). For example, the concept of educational technology was involved in the solution of problems in â€Å"all aspects of human learning† (p. ). h e concept of instructional technology was involved in the solution of problems where â€Å"learning is purposive and controlled† (p. 3). Educational Technology as a Process Two other complex conceptual developments were also undertaken by the authors of the 1977 dei nition, which were interrelated. First, the 1977 dei – nition of educational technology was called a â€Å"pr ocess† (AECT, 1977, p. 1). h e authors intended the term process to connote the idea that educational technology could be viewed as a theory, a i eld, or a profession.Second, the systems concept was infused throughout the entire dei nition statement and in all the major supporting concepts for the dei nition in both its descriptive and prescriptive senses. h e authors of the 1977 dei nition connected these two conceptual developments by saying that the use of the systems concept was a process (AECT, 1977). As one of the three major supporting concepts for the 1972 dei nition of educational technology, the systems approach had become the basis for the ER5861X_C010. ndd 271 ER5861X_C010. indd 271 8/16/07 6:24:27 PM 8/16/07 6:24:27 PM272 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE dei nition itself by 1977. h rough their ef orts to reinforce the process conception of educational technology, the leadership of the i eld now assumed that all of the major supporting concepts of the dei nition were t ied to, or should be viewed in light of, the systems approach. h e three major supporting concepts of the 1977 dei nition were learning resources, management, and development.Learning resources were any resources utilized in educational systems; a descriptive use of the systems concept the writers of the 1977 dei nition called â€Å"resources by utilization. † Authors called the resources specii cally designed for instructional purposes, a prescriptive use of the systems approach, â€Å"resources by design† or â€Å"instructional system components† (AECT, 1977). Like the concept of learning resources, management could be used in a descriptive fashion to describe administrative systems or in a prescriptive way to prescribe action. e concept of management was ot en used as a metaphor for the systems approach in education (Heinich, 1970). h e term instructional development was frequently used to mean the â€Å"systems approach to instructional development† o r â€Å"instructional systems development† (Twelker et al. , 1972). h e fact that the management view of the systems approach to instruction ot en included an instructional development process and the fact that instructional development models frequently included management as a task to be completed in the systems pproach to instructional development further intertwined the systems concept with the process view of educational technology. h ese descriptive and prescriptive interpretations of the 1977 dei nition would inl uence future dei nitions. As previously noted, the predilection that educational technology was a process was not new when the 1977 dei nition was written. Process was one of the three major supporting concepts incorporated into the rationale of the 1963 dei nition (Ely, 1963).Believing that educational technology was a process provided one of the major reasons that the leadership of the profession tended to reject the report of the Presidential Commission on Instructional Technology (1970), which focused heavily on the hardware of the i eld in its i rst dei nition of instructional technology. h e authors of the 1977 dei nition, who purposefully used the term process to develop a systematic and congruent scheme for the concept of educational technology, said, h e dei nition presented here dei nes the theory, the i eld, and profession as congruent. is occurs because the dei nition of the i eld of educational technology is directly derived from, and includes, the theory of educational technology, and the profession of educational technology is directly ER5861X_C010. indd 272 ER5861X_C010. indd 272 8/16/07 6:24:28 PM 8/16/07 6:24:28 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 273 derived from, and includes, the i eld of educational technology. (AECT, 1977, p. 135) In the end, the ef ort to demonstrate the congruence of the major concepts involved with educational technology created as many issues for the i eld as it resolved.Five immediate advantages for describing educational technology as a process were (1) the use of the term process reinforced the primacy of the process view of educational technology over the product view of educational technology. h e process view had been outlined in the 1963 dei nition statement, but the report of the Presidential Commission on Instructional Technology (1970) appeared to reverse this emphasis. (2) h e term process would ground the dei nition of educational technology in the activities of its practitioners, activities that could be directly observed and verii ed. 3) h e term process could be used to describe educational technology as a theory, a i eld, or a profession. (4) h e term process allowed the further evolution of thought and research around the concept of systems. Finally, (5) an organized process implies the use of research and theory, which would reinforce the idea that educational technology was a profession. Educational Technology as F ield, h eory, or Profession h e authors of the 1977 dei nition argued that educational technology could be thought of â€Å"in three dif erent ways—as a theoretical construct, as a i eld, and as a profession† (AECT, 1977, p. 7). h ey continued, â€Å"None of the foregoing perspectives is more correct or better than the others. Each is a different way of thinking about the same thing† (p. 18). h e writers of the 1977 dei nition argued that the theoretical construct, the i eld, and the profession were all process based. h e term process described and connected all three of these perspectives of educational technology with a single word. Educational technology had been called a theory in the 1963 dei nition (Ely, 1963), and it had been called a i eld in the 1972 dei nition (Ely, 1972).New to the 1977 dei nition was the argument that educational technology was also a profession. Prior to the publication of the 1977 dei nition, the term profession was used in passing as it related to educational technology. Since Finn (1953) had argued that the i eld had not yet reached professional status, members of the i eld (e. g. , Silber, 1970) had made few attempts to analyze educational technology systematically as a profession. Using Finn’s criteria, the writers of the 1977 dei nition argued that educational technology was now a profession.Depending upon the interpretation and application of the systems concept, educational technology could be explained as a theory, a i eld, or a profession ER5861X_C010. indd 273 ER5861X_C010. indd 273 8/16/07 6:24:28 PM 8/16/07 6:24:28 PM274 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE in the 1977 dei nition. h e impact of using the term process to describe educational technology as a theory, a i eld, or a profession hinged on these dif ering interpretations of the systems approach, once again prompting discussions and philosophical debates among prominent educational technologists. e period of the 1980s was not so focused on c riticism of the 1977 dei nition as much as characterized by broad academic wrangling over the interpretation and application of the dei nition (Januszewski, 1995, 2001). h e three major supporting concepts of the 1977 dei nition—learning resources, management, and development—could also be interpreted dif erently based on divergent conceptions of the systems approach. h e dif erent interpretations of learning resources, management, and development also provided the writers of the 1977 dei nition with a rationale to distinguish between educational technology and instructional technology.The 1994 Definition By 1994, the dei nition of educational technology had nearly come full circle. h e dei nition that was produced in 1994 read, â€Å"Instructional technology is the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning† (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 1). h ere are no new concepts included in the 19 94 dei nition. What was new was the identii cation of multiple theoretical and conceptual issues in the explanation of the dei nition. e 1994 dei nition was intended to be much less complex than the 1977 dei nition. h e extent to which the writers were successful can be judged in part by reviewing the criticisms of the 1977 dei nition. h e attempt by the writers of the 1977 dei nition to show the congruence of educational technology and instructional technology revealed a conceptual problem for the i eld. h e dei nition of educational technology, which was concerned with â€Å"all aspects of human learning† (AECT, 1977, p. ), had become so broad that some individuals in the i eld of education pointed out that there was no dif erence between educational technology and curriculum, school administration, or teaching methods (Ely, 1982). Saettler (1990) wryly pointed out that the dei nition had become everything to everybody, and he dubbed the 1977 dei nition the â€Å"omnibus d ei nition. † Logical Problems h ere were also serious l aws in the reasoning and the conceptual interpretations used in the theoretical framework and rationale for the 1977 dei nition of educational technology.Establishing the dif erence between ER5861X_C010. indd 274 ER5861X_C010. indd 274 8/16/07 6:24:28 PM 8/16/07 6:24:28 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 275 education and instruction, the authors argued, â€Å"Education, then, includes two classes of processes not included in instruction: those processes related to the administration of instruction . . . and those processes related to situations in which learning occurs when it is not deliberately managed† (AECT, 1977, p. 56).An example of learning not deliberately managed given in the discussion was â€Å"incidental learning† (p. 56). It was reasonable for the authors to argue that nondeliberately managed learning and/or incidental learning was part of the concept of education (Januszewski, 1997). However, the dei nitions of â€Å"technology† by Galbraith (1967), Hoban (1962), and Finn (1960a, 1965), which were used by the authors of the 1977 dei nition to discuss the term technology as it related to the concept of educational technology, all included the ideas of organization, management, and control (AECT, 1977). e writers of the 1977 dei nition considered organization, management, and control critical characteristics of technology; but these ideas were contrary to the idea of â€Å"incidental learning† and â€Å"learning that was not deliberately managed. † Education, at least as it was distinguished from instruction included in the rationale of the 1977 dei nition, did not seem compatible with technology. It is dii cult to conceive of a technology of the incidental, unmanaged, and unintended. e gains made in the organization of the framework of the concept of educational technology by distinguishing between education and instruction were lost when education was paired with technology (Januszewski, Butler, & Yeaman, 1996). h eory or theoretical construct. h e relationship of educational technology to â€Å"theory† presented another problem in the discussion of educational technology presented in the 1977 dei nition and rationale. ere are three ways in which the concept of theory is related to educational technology in the 1977 dei nition statement: (1) the thought that educational technology was a â€Å"theoretical construct† (AECT, 1977, pp. 18, 20, 24); (2) the notion that educational technology itself was â€Å"a theory† (AECT, 1977, pp. 2, 135, 138); and (3) that the â€Å"dei nition of educational technology was a theory† (AECT, 1977, pp. 4, 20, 134). To some degree, all three of these discussions of theory and educational technology are accurate, but they cannot be used interchangeably as they are in the 1977 dei nition.A theoretical construct is not the same as a t heory; nor is it the case, that because a dei nition of a concept is a theory, the concept itself a theory. h e word theory has been used in at least four ways in the literature of the i eld of education: (1) the â€Å"law like† theory of the hard sciences; (2) theories that are supported by statistical evidence; (3) theories that identify variables that inl uence the i eld of study; and (4) theory as a systematic analysis of a set of related concepts (Kliebard, 1977). ER5861X_C010. indd 275 ER5861X_C010. ndd 275 8/16/07 6:24:29 PM 8/16/07 6:24:29 PM276 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE h e fourth sense of theory is of interest to this analysis of the 1977 dei nition of educational technology. Systematic analyses of any abstract concept can be said to be theories of that concept. Referring to educational technology as a theoretical construct, or a theory, or calling the dei nition of educational technology a theory may be accurate if the construct or theory includes a systematic an alysis of the concept of educational technology. e writers of the 1977 dei nition provided criteria for â€Å"theory† that was not theory as a systematic analysis of related concepts. h e 1977 view of theory was an attempt to establish general principles and predict outcomes (AECT, 1977). h is approach was substantially dif erent from the usage of the word theory in the 1963 dei nition statement. Further confusion arises because of the writers’ claim that educational technology did indeed meet the criteria for being a predictive theory (Januszewski, 1995, 2001).Certainly â€Å"educational technology† is a theoretical construct. â€Å"Educational technology† may also be considered a theory depending on what exactly is intended by the word theory. The 1977 definition of educational technology is a theory about the abstract concept of â€Å"educational technology. † But because the definition of the concept of educational technology may be a theory of educational technology, it does not necessarily follow that the concept of educational technology is itself a theory.This is similar to saying that a definition of the concept of democracy may be a theory of democracy but that the concept of democracy itself is not a theory. Few involved in the field of educational technology adopted this systematic treatment of the concepts provided in the 1977 definition. Many in the field adopted only portions of the definition (e. g. , Gustafson, 1981). Certain parts of the definition and the supporting statements were cited by scholars in order to make erudite points about the field of educational technology (e. . , Romiszowski, 1981), but a reading of the literature of the field during this era reveals that the whole of the conceptual framework provided in the 1977 definition, specifically the part intended to distinguish educational technology from instructional technology, was not widely accepted by the professionals in the field of educati onal technology (Seels & Richey, 1994). This lack of acceptance led to the label changes in the 1994 definition. Distinguishing between educational and instructional. e ef ort to revise the 1977 dei nition addressed some of the conceptual incongruencies of previous dei nitions. h e i rst of these was the dif erence between educational and instructional technology. Unlike the writers of the 1977 dei nition, who sought to distinguish between educational technology and instructional technology, ER5861X_C010. indd 276 ER5861X_C010. indd 276 8/16/07 6:24:29 PM 8/16/07 6:24:29 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 277 the authors of the 1994 dei nition acknowledged that this problem had no easy answer. ey admitted, â€Å"At present the terms ‘Educational Technology’ and ‘Instructional Technology’ are used interchangeably by most professionals in the i eld† (p. 5). But they argued, Because the term ‘Instructional T echnology’ (a) is more commonly used today in the United States, (b) encompasses many practice settings, (c) describes more precisely the function of technology in education, and (d) allows for an emphasis on both instruction and learning in the same dei nitional sentence, the term ‘Instructional Technology’ is used in the 1994 dei nition, but the two terms are considered synonymous. Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 5) With that, the oi cial label of the i eld was changed from â€Å"educational technology† to â€Å"instructional technology,† although it was quite acceptable to continue to use the term educational technology. Underlying Assumptions Seels and Richey (1994) did dif erentiate the 1994 dei nition from previous dei nitions by identifying and analyzing some of the assumptions that underlie this dei nition. Identii ed assumptions included Instructional technology has evolved from a movement to a i eld and profession.Since a profession is concerned with a knowledge base, the 1994 dei nition must identify and emphasize instructional technology as a i eld of study as well as practice (p. 2). A revised dei nition of the i eld should encompass those areas of concern to practitioners and scholars. h ese areas are the domains of the i eld (p. 2). Both process and product are of vital importance to the i eld and need to be rel ected in the dei nition (p. 2). Subtleties not clearly understood or recognized by the typical Instructional Technology professional should be removed from the dei nition and its more extended explanation (p. ). It is assumed that both research and practice in the i eld are carried out in conformity with ethical norms of the profession (p. 3). Instructional technology is characterized by ef ectiveness and ei – ciency (p. 3). h e concept of systematic is implicit in the 1994 dei nition because the domains are equivalent to the systematic process for developing instruction (p. 8). †¢ †¢ †¢ à ¢â‚¬ ¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ ER5861X_C010. indd 277 ER5861X_C010. indd 277 8/16/07 6:24:29 PM 8/16/07 6:24:29 PM278 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE h e inclusion of these ssumptions in the analysis and explanation accompanying the 1994 dei nition allowed for the publication of a dei nition that was much more â€Å"economical† than were previous dei nition ef orts. h eory and Practice h e authors of the 1994 dei nition stated that the dei nition was composed of four components: (a) theory and practice; (b) design, development, utilization, management and evaluation; (c) processes and resources; and (d) learning. h ese components were not necessarily new; but in this dei nition, they were reorganized, simplii ed, and connected, in a way making the 1994 dei nition unique. e 1994 dei nition used the phrasing included in the 1963 dei nition when it called instructional technology â€Å"the theory and practice of. † And the authors argued, â€Å"A profession must have a knowl edge base that supports practice† (Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 9). h e authors used a simple but rather clear notion that â€Å"theory consists of the concepts, constructs, principles, and propositions that contribute to the body of knowledge† and that â€Å"practice is the application of the knowledge† (p. 11).In so doing, the authors cleared up the problem of the meaning of theory that they had inherited from the writers of the 1977 dei nition, a dei nition of theory that had been too precise. Domains h e concepts (or â€Å"domains† of the 1994 dei nition) of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation comprise the accepted knowledge base of the i eld today as evidenced by the Standards for the Accreditation of School Media Specialist and Educational Technology Specialist Programs (AECT, 2000).When these concepts are taken together and conducted in sequential order, they are the same as the stages of â€Å"development† described in t he 1977 dei nition. h ese concepts are directly traceable to the idea of educational engineering developed by W. W. Charters (1945). It is important to realize that the authors of the 1994 dei nition did not intend that practitioners of educational technology perform all of these tasks in the sequential order. Specializing in or focusing on one of these tasks would include broad practitioners in the i eld (Seels & Richey, 1994).Seels and Richey (1994) provided dei nitions of processes and resources: â€Å"A process is a series of operations or activities directed towards a particular end† (p. 12). â€Å"Resources are sources of support for learning, including support systems and instructional materials and environments† (p. 12). h ese descriptions allowed the authors to (a) use process to reinforce notions of ER5861X_C010. indd 278 ER5861X_C010. indd 278 8/16/07 6:24:30 PM 8/16/07 6:24:30 PM10.A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 279 eng ineering and science in instruction; (b) maintain the distinction between resources as things and processes; and (c) be consistent with terminology used in all three previous dei nitions. h e concept of learning was not new to the 1994 dei nition; however, the dei nition of learning intended by the authors was new. In previous dei nitions, the term learning was intended to connote a change in behavior such as advocated by Tyler (1950). But the authors of the 1994 dei nition wanted to move away from a strong behaviorist orientation. ey argued, â€Å"In this dei nition learning refers to the ‘relatively permanent change in a person’s knowledge or behavior due to experience’† (Mayer, 1982, as cited in Seels & Richey, 1994, p. 12). Including the phrase â€Å"due to experience† also aided in moving away from causal connections and allowed for incidental learning. h is interpretation signaled the acceptance of a dif erent kind of science in education: one less grounded on prediction and control and more interested in applying other theoretical and research principles to the instructional process.Criticism of the 1994 Dei nition h e primary criticism of the 1994 dei nition is that instructional technology appeared to look too much like the systems approach to instructional development while changes in the practice of the i eld (e. g. , constructivistbased initiatives and the general acceptance of computer innovations in classroom methodologies) made the 1994 dei nition too restrictive for mainstream teachers and school administrators as well as researchers and scholars. h ese criticisms and further evolution of the research and practice in the i eld led to a need for reconsideration and evision of this dei nition at er more than a decade of use. The Current Definition h e task force empanelled by AECT to review the 1994 dei nition wrestled with the historical issues presented here and with other issues of perception, changing employm ent and training expectations, semantics, and a strong desire to develop a dei nition that both served to include the broad variety of practitioners in this i eld and one which would prompt renewed attention to the theory and research so critical to our continued contributions to learning.In a sense, we are not so far removed in this century from the professional goal stated in the 1963 dei nition: ER5861X_C010. indd 279 ER5861X_C010. indd 279 8/16/07 6:24:30 PM 8/16/07 6:24:30 PM280 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE It is the responsibility of educational leaders to respond intelligently to technological change . . . If the DAVI membership is to support the leadership in such bold steps, dei nition and terminology as a basis for direction of professional growth is a prime prerequisite . . Now that the i eld of audiovisual communications, the largest single segment of the growing technology of instruction, has reached the point of decision making, we i nd ourselves in the same quandary ot her i elds have discovered when they have attempted to dei ne their i elds: i. e. , dei nition exists at various levels of understanding but no one dei nition can be the dei nition. (Ely, 1963, pp. 16–18)And so, the latest in the line of dei nitions of educational technology: â€Å"Educational technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources. † References Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1972). h e i eld of educational technology: A statement of dei nition. Audiovisual Instruction, 17, 36–43. Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (1977). h e dei nition of educational technology. Washington, DC: Author.Association for Educational Communications and Technology. (2000). Standards for the accreditation of school media specialist and educational technology specialist programs. Bloomington, IN : Author. Berlo, D. (1960). h e process of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Charters, W. W. (1945). Is there a i eld of educational engineering? Educational Research Bulletin, 24(2), 29–37, 53. Commission on Instructional Technology. (1970). To improve learning: A report to the President and the Congress of the United States. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Oi ce. Ely, D. P. (1963). e changing role of the audiovisual process: A dei nition and glossary of related terms. Audiovisual Communication Review, 11(1), Supplement 6. Ely, D. P. (1972). h e i eld of educational technology: A statement of dei nition. Audiovisual Instruction, 17, 36–43. Ely, D. P. (1973). Dei ning the i eld of educational technology. Audiovisual Instruction, 18(3), 52–53. ER5861X_C010. indd 280 ER5861X_C010. indd 280 8/16/07 6:24:31 PM 8/16/07 6:24:31 PM10. A HISTORY OF THE AECT’S DEFINITIONS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 281 Ely, D. P. (1982). h e dei nition of educational technology: An emerging stability.Educational Considerations, 10(2), 24. Ely, D. P. (1994). Personal conversations. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University. Ely, D. P. , Funderburk, E. , Briggs, L. , Engler, D. , Dietrich, J. , Davis, R. , et al. (1970). Comments on the report of the Commission on Instructional Technology. Audiovisual Communications Review, 18(3), 306–326. Finn, J. D. (1953). Professionalizing the audiovisual i eld. Audiovisual Communications Review, 1(1), 617. Finn, J. D. (1957). Automation and education: General aspects. Audiovisual Communications Review, 5(1), 343–360. Finn, J. D. (1960a).Automation and education: A new theory for instructional technology. Audiovisual Communications Review, 8(1), 526. Finn, J. D. (1960b). Teaching machines: Auto instructional devices for the teacher. NEA Journal, 49(8), 41–44. Finn, J. D. (1965). Instructional technology. Audiovisual Instruction, 10(3), 192–194. Finn, J. D. (1967, August). Dia log in search of relevance. Paper presented at the Audiovisual Communication Leadership Conference, Lake Okoboji, Iowa. Galbraith, J. K. (1967). h e new industrial state. Boston: Houghton Mil in. Gerbner, G. (1956). Toward a general model of communication.Audiovisual Communications Review, 4, 171–199. Gustafson, K. (1981). Survey of instructional development models. Syracuse, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 211 097) Heinich, R. (1970). Technology and the management of instruction. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Hoban, C. F. (1962, March). Implications of theory for research and implementation in the new media. Paper presented at the Conference on h eory for the New Media in Education, Michigan State University, Lansing, Michigan. Hoban, C. F. (1968).Man, ritual, the establishment and instructional technology. Educational Technology, 10(5), 11. Januszewski, A. (1995). h e de i nition of educational technology: An intellectual and historical account. Ann Arbor, MI: Microi lms International. Januszewski, A. (1997, February). Considerations for intellectual history in instructional design and technology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Albuquerque, New Mexico. ER5861X_C010. indd 281 ER5861X_C010. indd 281 8/16/07 6:24:31 PM 8/16/07 6:24:31 PM282 JANUSZEWSKI AND PERSICHITTE Januszewski, A. 2001). Educational technology: h e development of a concept. Libraries Unlimited: Englewood, CO. Januszewski, A. , Butler, R. , & Yeaman, A. (1996, October). Writing histories of visual literacy and educational technology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Visual Literacy Association, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Kliebard, H. M. (1977). Curriculum theory: Give me a â€Å"for instance. † Curriculum Inquiry, 6(4), 257–269. Knowlton, J. Q. (1964). A conceptual scheme for the audiovisual i eld. Bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana University, 40(3). Myers, D. C. & Cochran, L. M. (1973). Statement of dei nition: A response. Audiovisual Instruction, 18(5), 11–13. Romiszowski, A. J. (1981). Designing instructional systems. London: Kogan Page. Saettler, P. (1990). h e evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc. Seels, B. , & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: h e dei nition and domains of the i eld. Washington, DC: AECT Press. Silber, K. (1970). What i eld are we in, anyhow? Audiovisual Instruction, 15(5), 21–24. Silber, K. (1972). h e learning system. Audiovisual Instruction, 17(7), 10–27.Twelker, P. A. , Urbach, F. D. , & Buck, J. E. (1972). h e systematic development of instruction: An overview and basic guide to t