work better ) and empirical ( aimed at determining how CBI works ) using both quantitative and qualitative methods .
Summary
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This second section has presented evidence for the effectiveness of the learning “ from ” media and technology approach . Focusing on television and computerbased instruction , evidence was provided that media and technology can be effective tutors in K-12 schools , although the question of whether media and technology enable learning more than traditional classroom methods remains unresolved . Differences that have been found between technology as tutors and teachers have been modest and inconsistent . It appears that the larger value of media and technology as tutors rests in their capacity to motivate students , increase equity of access , and reduce the time needed to accomplish a given set of objectives .
With its firm foundation in behavioral psychology , the learning “ from ” or tutorial approach to using media and technology in schools is well-established in the minds of many educators and the public at large . In fact , if the commercial success of integrated learning systems and many other tutorial programs is good evidence , many regard this approach as a sufficient way of introducing media and technology into the school curriculum . However , cognitive psychologists and constructivist educators have created quite different models . In the next section , we turn our attention to the learning “ with ” or cognitive tools approach .
16