Type I and Type II Technology

The most obvious difference between Type I technology and Type II technology is the amount of free choice the student is given. When working with Type I technology, students are using learning tools that represent the exact same learning technique each student before them used. Type I technology is a more cut and dried learning style which many times is very effective, but it limits students. Type II technology which is not used as often, provides students the opportunity for more free thinking and decision making. Each student is able to choose a different way to go about solving problems, the technology is an aid to the student. When using Type I technology the student is more of an aid to the program being used. Each style can render successful learning, and should be included in all educators' teaching techniques at one time or another.
Type I:
Junior High; keyboard lessons where every student typed through the same program.

High school; Spanish class we would have to listen to a monotone recorded voice to practice understanding sentences instead of working on an open ended project that required sentence structure practice.

For example; The entire class in the computer lab had to successfully create the same animal with the same exact characteristics to become familiar with the program. This project would give the student no input on the outcome, it requires no thinking and problem solving just simply how to use that particular program.

Type II:
Fall 2004 at UMF; LIA class we were to create a 10 minute movie, topics had to be appropriate but were completely open ended.

Fall 2007 at UMF; Art 112 class was to create any illustration using just letters of the alphabet.

Fall 2006 at UMF; Geology course required us to use this online simulation program to create a bridge that could withstand the greatest earthquake magnitudes.


Maddux, Cleborne, and D. LaMont Johnson. "Type II Applications of Technology in Education: New and Better Ways of Teaching and Learning. " Computers in the Schools. Vol. 22, No. 1/2. (2005): pp.1-5.