The AECT definition of Education Technology is the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008).
I took a moment to reflect on and research this definition and it appears it can be broken down into four parts; a what, a why, a how, and a what with. The first part is the “study and ethical practice.” Clearly, the emphasis has shifted from merely a tool, as it was in earlier years, to a study and ethical practice. As I understand, ethics has to do with the balance of power and responsibility. 
The second part, “facilitating learning and improving performance” highlights the reasons we focus on technology.
The third part, “by creating, using and managing” is how we apply it. It also infers who by referencing the creator, the learner, and the teacher. Finally, the last part of the definition” technological processes and resources” speaks to the historic definitions by including the tools that were once the prominent focus (Hlynka & Jacobsen, 2009).
After reading the Chapter 1 in Education: A Definition with Commentary, it is clear to me it would be difficult to express my reflections without incorporating all of the elements stated to make up the definition. Each element tends to overlap and support the other.
I chose to reflect upon the “creating” element as it has taken a front seat in one of my most recent education projects. I first have to mention, since I teach one of the first online classes most of my students have ever taken, I encounter much apprehension from them. I try to encourage them by explaining the shift in the roles for both teachers and students. I tell them teachers must change their role from controlling to facilitating learning. Additionally, the students must change their role from passive learners to active learners. I then go on to tell them “we” will work though the material together.
To present an example of the creating element, I will start by reflecting on recent experience I had while designing a college course titled Computers in Business. This course had been taught solely as a face to face course for nearly a decade. I was asked to develop an online version of the course in order to meet the growing demand for exclusively online programs. My design criteria had to adhere to the Quality Matters (2008) rubric adopted by my college. The challenge was to create a course that met the same course outcomes using the same book as the on campus version. The on campus course contained a lecture and a final exam. I chose not to have a final because there was no lecture or material from the course project workbook to derive the exam from. Most adult learners are used to reading a book, listening to a lecture, doing the assignments, and taking a test as a summative evaluation. While this is a traditional concept, I personally do not believe it is an effective one.
With a business background, I have often used a systems approach to problem solving. I used tools such as Six Sigma, which is similar to that described in the reading. Unfortunately, business goals tend to put less emphasis on learning and more emphasis on the solution to a problem. I decided it was more appropriate to incorporate forrmative assessments rather than relying exclusively on a single summative assessment such as final exam. Instead of lecture, I added discussion forums based upon podcasts about the latest news in technology. Instead of tests, I incorporated individual and group projects designed to reflect skills learned throughout the course. I also assigned work requiring students to work through step by step processes in order produce finished products. Each finished product is meant to demonstrate a mastery of a specific outcome of the course. I believe the final group project improves the success of the course because students construct knowledge from each other and not just from the project itself. Also, they have to overcome an obstacle of communication challenges they would not have faced in an on campus course.
I was very pleased with the course design and it met all of the requirements of the Quality Matters (2008) design rubric. However, I would imagine some skepticism would come from people who are used to a more traditional method of education. I have heard of statements from instructors who believe some subjects cannot be successfully taught online. Additionally, the lack of formal quizzes or exams tends to be frowned upon from traditional points of view. In part, I would agree quizzes and exam are good assessment tools, but may not be the best means of assessment for certain learning outcomes.
This brings me back to the systems approach outlined in the creating element. To me, the outcomes must be relevant before creation. The front-end analysis, learner analysis, and the objectives must all be considered when developing curriculum. One must be sure the learning methods are being used properly. In the end, the students must be able to demonstrate they have mastered the knowledge and skills relative to the outcomes of the course. Brian Arthur (as cited in Hlynka & Jacobsen, 2009) defined technology as “a means to fulfill a human purpose.” If that purpose is education, then technology should be central and necessary to facilitate it.
Denis Hlynka, B. & Jacobsen,M.( 2009). What is educational technology, anyway? A commentary on the new AECT definition of the field: Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology
http://www.cjlt.ca/index.php/cjlt/article/viewArticle/527
Januszewski, A. & Molenda, M. (2008). Educational technology: A definition with commentary. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc.
Quality Matters. (2008). Quality Matters: Rubric for Online and Hybrid Courses (2008-2010 ed). MarylandOnline Inc.
https://pmgoff.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/podcast_1.jpg?w=300
Dr. Matt Goff: e-Portfolio 
