Educational technology

"Teaching machines" redirects here. For the mechanical devices, see Teaching machine.

"E-learning" redirects here. Not to be confused with Distance education, Online machine learning, or Tech ed.

Educational technology (commonly abbreviated as edutech, or edtech) is the combined use of computer hardware, software, and educational theory and practice to facilitate learning.[1][2] When referred to with its abbreviation, "EdTech", it often refers to the industry of companies that create educational technology.[3][4][5] In EdTech Inc.: Selling, Automating and Globalizing Higher Education in the Digital Age, Tanner Mirrlees and Shahid Alvi (2019) argue "EdTech is no exception to industry ownership and market rules" and "define the EdTech industries as all the privately owned companies currently involved in the financing, production and distribution of commercial hardware, software, cultural goods, services and platforms for the educational market with the goal of turning a profit. Many of these companies are US-based and rapidly expanding into educational markets across North America, and increasingly growing all over the world."[3]

In addition to the practical educational experience, educational technology is based on theoretical knowledge from various disciplines such as communication, education, psychology, sociology, artificial intelligence, and computer science.[6] It encompasses several domains including learning theory, computer-based training, online learning, and m-learning where mobile technologies are used.

Definition

The Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) has defined educational technology as "the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using and managing appropriate technological processes and resources".[7] It denotes instructional technology as "the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning".[8][9][10] As such, educational technology refers to all valid and reliable applied education sciences, such as equipment, as well as processes and procedures that are derived from scientific research, and in a given context may refer to theoretical, algorithmic or heuristic processes: it does not necessarily imply physical technology. Educational technology is the process of integrating technology into education in a positive manner that promotes a more diverse learning environment and a way for students to learn how to use technology as well as their common assignments.

Accordingly, there are several discrete aspects to describing the intellectual and technical development of educational technology:

• Educational technology as the theory and practice of educational approaches to learning.
• Educational technology as technological tools and media, for instance massive online courses, that assist in the communication of knowledge, and its development and exchange. This is usually what people are referring to when they use the term "edtech".
• Educational technology for learning management systems (LMS), such as tools for student and curriculum management, and education management information systems (EMIS).
• Educational technology as back-office management, such as training management systems for logistics and budget management, and Learning Record Store (LRS) for learning data storage and analysis.
• Educational technology itself as an educational subject; such courses may be called "computer studies" or "information and communications technology (ICT)".[11]

Related terms

Early 20th-century abacus used in a Danish elementary school

Educational technology is an inclusive term for both the material tools and processes, and the theoretical foundations for supporting learning and teaching. Educational technology is not restricted to advanced technology but is anything that enhances classroom learning in the utilization of blended, face-to-face, or online learning.[12]

An educational technologist is someone who is trained in the field of educational technology. Educational technologists try to analyze, design, develop, implement, and evaluate processes and tools to enhance learning.[13] While the term educational technologist is used primarily in the United States, learning technologist is a synonymous term used in the UK[14] as well as Canada.

Modern electronic educational technology is an important part of society today.[15] Educational technology encompasses e-learning, instructional technology, information and communication technology (ICT) in education, edtech, learning technology, multimedia learning, technology-enhanced learning (TEL), computer-based instruction (CBI), computer managed instruction, computer-based training (CBT), computer-assisted instruction or computer-aided instruction (CAI),[16] internet-based training (IBT), flexible learning, web-based training (WBT), online education, digital educational collaboration, distributed learning, computer-mediated communication, cyber-learning, and multi-modal instruction, virtual education, personal learning environments, networked learning, virtual learning environments (VLE) (which are also called learning platforms), m-learning, and digital education.[17]

Each of these numerous terms has had its advocates, who point up potential distinctive features.[18] However, many terms and concepts in educational technology have been defined nebulously. For example, Singh and Thurman cite over 45 definitions for online learning.[19] Moreover, Moore saw these terminologies as emphasizing particular features such as digitization approaches, components, or delivery methods rather than being fundamentally dissimilar in concept or principle.[18] For example, m-learning emphasizes mobility, which allows for altered timing, location, accessibility, and context of learning; nevertheless, its purpose and conceptual principles are those of educational technology.[18]

In practice, as technology has advanced, the particular "narrowly defined" terminological aspect that was initially emphasized by name has blended into the general field of educational technology.[18] Initially, "virtual learning" as narrowly defined in a semantic sense implied entering an environmental simulation within a virtual world, for example in treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).[20][21] In practice, a "virtual education course" refers to any instructional course in which all, or at least a significant portion, is delivered by the Internet. "Virtual" is used in that broader way to describe a course that is not taught in a classroom face-to-face but "virtually" with people not having to go to the physical classroom to learn. Accordingly, virtual education refers to a form of distance learning in which course content is delivered using various methods such as course management applications, multimedia resources, and videoconferencing.[22] Virtual education and simulated learning opportunities, such as games or dissections, offer opportunities for students to connect classroom content to authentic situations.[23]

Educational content, pervasively embedded in objects, is all around the learner, who may not even be conscious of the learning process.[24] The combination of adaptive learning, using an individualized interface and materials, which accommodate to an individual, who thus receives personally differentiated instruction, with ubiquitous access to digital resources and learning opportunities in a range of places and at various times, has been termed smart learning.[25][26][27] Smart learning is a component of the smart city concept.[28][29]

History

Main article: Educational software

19th-century classroom, Auckland

Helping people and children learn in ways that are easier, faster, more accurate, or less expensive can be traced back to the emergence of very early tools, such as paintings on cave walls.[30][31] Various types of abacus have been used. Writing slates and blackboards have been used for at least a millennium.[32] Since their introduction, books and pamphlets have played a prominent role in education. From the early twentieth century, duplicating machines such as the mimeograph and Gestetner stencil devices were used to produce short copy runs (typically 10–50 copies) for classroom or home use. The use of media for instructional purposes is generally traced back to the first decade of the 20th century[33] with the introduction of educational films (the 1900s) and Sidney Pressey's mechanical teaching machines (1920s). The first all multiple choice, large-scale assessment was the Army Alpha, used to assess the intelligence and, more specifically, the aptitudes of World War I military recruits. Further large-scale use of technologies was employed in training soldiers during and after WWII using films and other mediated materials, such as overhead projectors. The concept of hypertext is traced to the description of memex by Vannevar Bush in 1945.

Cuisenaire rods

Slide projectors were widely used during the 1950s in educational institutional settings. Cuisenaire rods were devised in the 1920s and saw widespread use from the late 1950s.

In the mid-1960s, Stanford University psychology professors, Patrick Suppes and Richard C. Atkinson, experimented with using computers to teach arithmetic and spelling via Teletypes to elementary school students in the Palo Alto Unified School District in California.[34][35] Stanford's Education Program for Gifted Youth is descended from those early experiments.

Online education originated from the University of Illinois in 1960. Although the internet would not be created for another decade, students were able to access class information with linked computer terminals. Online learning emerged in 1982 when the Western Behavioral Sciences Institute in La Jolla, California, opened its School of Management and Strategic Studies. The school employed computer conferencing through the New Jersey Institute of Technology's Electronic Information Exchange System (EIES) to deliver a distance education program to business executives.[36] Starting in 1985, Connected Education offered the first totally online master's degree in media studies, through The New School in New York City, also via the EIES computer conferencing system.[37][38][39] Subsequent courses were offered in 1986 by the Electronic University Network for DOS and Commodore 64 computers. In 2002, MIT began providing online classes free of charge. As of 2009^[update], approximately 5.5 million students were taking at least one class online. Currently, one out of three college students takes at least one online course while in college. At DeVry University, out of all students that are earning a bachelor's degree, 80% earn two-thirds of their requirements online. Also, in 2014, 2.85 million students out of 5.8 million students that took courses online, took all of their courses online. From this information, it can be concluded that the number of students taking classes online is on a steady increase.[40][41]

Multimedia space, Moldova Alliance Française

The recent article, "Shift Happens: Online Education as a New Paradigm in Learning", Linda Harasim covers an overview of the history of online education as well as a framework for understanding the type of need it addresses. The concept of distance learning has already been invented for many centuries. The value of online education is not found in its ability to establish a method for distance learning, but rather in its power to make this type of learning process more efficient by providing a medium in which the instructor and their students can virtually interact with one another in real-time. The topic of online education started primarily in the late 1900s when institutions and businesses started to make products to assist students' learning. These groups desired a need to further develop educational services across the globe, primarily to developing countries. In 1960, the University of Illinois created a system of linked computer terminals, known as the Intranet, to give students access to recorded lectures and course materials that they could watch or use in their free time. This type of concept, called PLATO (programmed logic for automatic teaching operations), was rapidly introduced throughout the globe. Many institutions adopted this similar technique while the internet was in its developmental phase.

In 1971, Ivan Illich published a hugely influential book, Deschooling Society, in which he envisioned "learning webs" as a model for people to network the learning they needed. The 1970s and 1980s saw notable contributions in computer-based learning by Murray Turoff and Starr Roxanne Hiltz at the New Jersey Institute of Technology[42] as well as developments at the University of Guelph in Canada.[43] In the UK, the Council for Educational Technology supported the use of educational technology, in particular administering the government's National Development Programme in Computer Aided Learning[44] (1973–1977) and the Microelectronics Education Programme (1980–1986).

By the mid-1980s, accessing course content became possible at many college libraries. In computer-based training (CBT) or computer-based learning (CBL), the learning interaction was between the student and computer drills or micro-world simulations.

Digitized communication and networking in education started in the mid-1980s. Educational institutions began to take advantage of the new medium by offering distance learning courses using computer networking for information. Early e-learning systems, based on computer-based learning/training often replicated autocratic teaching styles whereby the role of the e-learning system was assumed to be for transferring knowledge, as opposed to systems developed later based on computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), which encouraged the shared development of knowledge.

Videoconferencing was an important forerunner to the educational technologies known today. This work was especially popular with museum education. Even in recent years, videoconferencing has risen in popularity to reach over 20,000 students across the United States and Canada in 2008–2009. Disadvantages of this form of educational technology are readily apparent: image and sound quality are often grainy or pixelated; videoconferencing requires setting up a type of mini-television studio within the museum for broadcast; space becomes an issue; and specialized equipment is required for both the provider and the participant.[45]

The Open University in Britain[43] and the University of British Columbia (where Web CT, now incorporated into Blackboard Inc., was first developed) began a revolution of using the Internet to deliver learning,[46] making heavy use of web-based training, online distance learning, and online discussion between students.[47] Practitioners such as Harasim (1995)[48] put heavy emphasis on the use of learning networks.

With the advent of the World Wide Web in the 1990s, teachers embarked on the method of using emerging technologies to employ multi-object oriented sites, which are text-based online virtual reality systems, to create course websites along with simple sets of instructions for their students.

By 1994, the first online high school had been founded. In 1997, Graziadei described criteria for evaluating products and developing technology-based courses that include being portable, replicable, scalable, affordable, and having a high probability of long-term cost-effectiveness.[49]

Improved Internet functionality enabled new schemes of communication with multimedia or webcams. The National Center for Education Statistics estimates the number of K-12 students enrolled in online distance learning programs increased by 65% from 2002 to 2005, with greater flexibility, ease of communication between teacher and student, and quick lecture and assignment feedback.

According to a 2008 study conducted by the U.S Department of Education, during the 2006–2007 academic year about 66% of postsecondary public and private schools participating in student financial aid programs offered some distance learning courses; records show 77% of enrollment in for-credit courses with an online component.[50] In 2008, the Council of Europe passed a statement endorsing e-learning's potential to drive equality and education improvements across the EU.[51]

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is between learners and instructors, mediated by the computer. In contrast, CBT/CBL usually means individualized (self-study) learning, while CMC involves educator/tutor facilitation and requires the scalarization of flexible learning activities. In addition, modern ICT provides education with tools for sustaining learning communities and associated knowledge management tasks.

Students growing up in this digital age have extensive exposure to a variety of media.[52] Major high-tech companies have funded schools to provide them with the ability to teach their students through technology.[53]

2015 was the first year that private nonprofit organizations enrolled more online students than for-profits, although public universities still enrolled the highest number of online students. In the fall of 2015, more than 6 million students enrolled in at least one online course.[54]

In 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many schools across the world were forced to close, which left more and more grade-school students participating in online learning, and university-level students enrolling in online courses to enforce distance learning.[55][56] Organizations such as Unesco have enlisted educational technology solutions to help schools facilitate distance education.[57] The pandemic's extended lockdowns and focus on distance learning has attracted record-breaking amounts of venture capital to the ed-tech sector.[58] In 2020, in the United States alone, ed-tech startups raised $1.78 billion in venture capital spanning 265 deals, compared to $1.32 billion in 2019.[59]

Theory

Main articles: Educational psychology, E-learning (theory), Learning theory (education), and Educational philosophies

Various pedagogical perspectives or learning theories may be considered in designing and interacting with educational technology. E-learning theory examines these approaches. These theoretical perspectives are grouped into three main theoretical schools or philosophical frameworks: behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism.

Behaviorism

This theoretical framework was developed in the early 20th century based on animal learning experiments by Ivan Pavlov, Edward Thorndike, Edward C. Tolman, Clark L. Hull, and B.F. Skinner. Many psychologists used these results to develop theories of human learning, but modern educators generally see behaviorism as one aspect of a holistic synthesis. Teaching in behaviorism has been linked to training, emphasizing animal learning experiments. Since behaviorism consists of the view of teaching people how to do something with rewards and punishments, it is related to training people.[60]

B.F. Skinner wrote extensively on improvements in teaching based on his functional analysis of verbal behavior[61][62] and wrote "The Technology of Teaching",[63][64] an attempt to dispel the myths underlying contemporary education as well as promote his system he called programmed instruction. Ogden Lindsley developed a learning system, named Celeration, which was based on behavior analysis but substantially differed from Keller's and Skinner's models.

Cognitivism

Cognitive science underwent significant change in the 1960s and 1970s to the point that some described the period as a "cognitive revolution", particularly in reaction to behaviorism.[65] While retaining the empirical framework of behaviorism, cognitive psychology theories look beyond behavior to explain brain-based learning by considering how human memory works to promote learning. It refers to learning as "all processes by which the sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, and used" by the human mind.[65][66] The Atkinson-Shiffrin memory model and Baddeley's working memory model were established as theoretical frameworks. Computer science and information technology have had a major influence on cognitive science theory. The cognitive concepts of working memory (formerly known as short-term memory) and long-term memory have been facilitated by research and technology from the field of computer science. Another major influence on the field of cognitive science is Noam Chomsky. Today researchers are concentrating on topics like cognitive load, information processing, and media psychology. These theoretical perspectives influence instructional design.[67]

There are two separate schools of cognitivism, and these are the cognitivist and social cognitivist. The former focuses on the understanding of the thinking or cognitive processes of an individual while the latter includes social processes as influences in learning besides cognition.[68] These two schools, however, share the view that learning is more than a behavioral change but is rather a mental process used by the learner.[68]

Constructivism

Educational psychologists distinguish between several types of constructivism: individual (or psychological) constructivism, such as Piaget's theory of cognitive development, and social constructivism. This form of constructivism has a primary focus on how learners construct their own meaning from new information, as they interact with reality and with other learners who bring different perspectives. Constructivist learning environments require students to use their prior knowledge and experiences to formulate new, related, and/or adaptive concepts in learning (Termos, 2012[69]). Under this framework, the role of the teacher becomes that of a facilitator, providing guidance so that learners can construct their own knowledge. Constructivist educators must make sure that the prior learning experiences are appropriate and related to the concepts being taught. Jonassen (1997) suggests "well-structured" learning environments are useful for novice learners and that "ill-structured" environments are only useful for more advanced learners. Educators utilizing a constructivist perspective may emphasize an active learning environment that may incorporate learner-centered problem-based learning, project-based learning, and inquiry-based learning, ideally involving real-world scenarios, in which students are actively engaged in critical thinking activities. An illustrative discussion and example can be found in the 1980s deployment of constructivist cognitive learning in computer literacy, which involved programming as an instrument of learning.[70]: 224  LOGO, a programming language, embodied an attempt to integrate Piagetian ideas with computers and technology.[70][71] Initially there were broad, hopeful claims, including "perhaps the most controversial claim" that it would "improve general problem-solving skills" across disciplines.[70]: 238  However, LOGO programming skills did not consistently yield cognitive benefits.[70]: 238  It was "not as concrete" as advocates claimed, it privileged "one form of reasoning over all others", and it was difficult to apply the thinking activity to non-LOGO-based activities.[72] By the late 1980s, LOGO and other similar programming languages had lost their novelty and dominance and were gradually de-emphasized amid criticisms.[73]

Practice

See also: Instructional design

The extent to which e-learning assists or replaces other learning and teaching approaches is variable, ranging on a continuum from none to fully online distance learning.[74][75] A variety of descriptive terms have been employed (somewhat inconsistently) to categorize the extent to which technology is used. For example, "hybrid learning" or "blended learning" may refer to classroom aids and laptops, or may refer to approaches in which traditional classroom time is reduced but not eliminated, and is replaced with some online learning.[76][77] "Distributed learning" may describe either the e-learning component of a hybrid approach, or fully online distance learning environments.[74]

Synchronous and asynchronous

E-learning may either be synchronous or asynchronous. Synchronous learning occurs in real-time, with all participants interacting at the same time. In contrast, asynchronous learning is self-paced and allows participants to engage in the exchange of ideas or information without the dependency on other participants' involvement at the same time.[78]

Synchronous learning refers to exchanging ideas and information with one or more participants during the same period. Examples are face-to-face discussion, online real-time live teacher instruction and feedback, Skype conversations, and chat rooms or virtual classrooms where everyone is online and working collaboratively at the same time. Since students are working collaboratively, synchronized learning helps students become more open-minded because they have to actively listen and learn from their peers. Synchronized learning fosters online awareness and improves many students' writing skills.[79]

Asynchronous learning may use technologies such as learning management systems, email, blogs, wikis, and discussion boards, as well as web-supported textbooks,[80] hypertext documents, audio[81] video courses, and social networking using web 2.0. At the professional educational level, training may include virtual operating rooms. Asynchronous learning is beneficial for students who have health problems or who have childcare responsibilities. They have the opportunity to complete their work in a low-stress environment and within a more flexible time frame.[47] In asynchronous online courses, students are allowed the freedom to complete work at their own pace. Being non-traditional students, they can manage their daily life and school and still have the social aspect. Asynchronous collaborations allow the student to reach out for help when needed and provide helpful guidance, depending on how long it takes them to complete the assignment. Many tools used for these courses are but are not limited to: videos, class discussions, and group projects.[82] Through online courses, students can earn their diplomas faster, or repeat failed courses without being in a class with younger students. Students have access to various enrichment courses in online learning, still participate in college courses, internships, sports, or work, and still graduate with their classes.

Linear learning

Computer-based training (CBT) refers to self-paced learning activities delivered on a computer or handheld devices such as a tablet or smartphone. CBT initially delivered content via CD-ROM, and typically presented content linearly, much like reading an online book or manual.[83] For this reason, CBT is often used to teach static processes, such as using software or completing mathematical equations. Computer-based training is conceptually similar to web-based training (WBT), which is delivered via Internet using a web browser.

Assessing learning in a CBT is often by assessments that can be easily scored by a computer such as multiple-choice questions, drag-and-drop, radio button, simulation, or other interactive means. Assessments are easily scored and recorded via online software, providing immediate end-user feedback and completion status. Users are often able to print completion records in the form of certificates.[83]

CBTs provide learning stimulus beyond traditional learning methodology from textbook, manual, or classroom-based instruction. CBTs can be a good alternative to printed learning materials since rich media, including videos or animations, can be embedded to enhance learning.[83]

However, CBTs pose some learning challenges. Typically, the creation of effective CBTs requires enormous resources. The software for developing CBTs is often more complex than a subject matter expert or teacher is able to use.[83] The lack of human interaction can limit both the type of content that can be presented and the type of assessment that can be performed and may need supplementation with online discussion or other interactive elements.

Collaborative learning

Main article: Computer-supported collaborative learning

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) uses instructional methods designed to encourage or require students to work together on learning tasks, allowing social learning. CSCL is similar in concept to the terminology, "e-learning 2.0" and "networked collaborative learning" (NCL).[84] With Web 2.0 advances, sharing information between multiple people in a network has become much easier and use has increased.[83][85]: 1 [86] One of the main reasons for its usage states that it is "a breeding ground for creative and engaging educational endeavors."[85]: 2  Learning takes place through conversations about content and grounded interaction about problems and actions. This collaborative learning differs from instruction in which the instructor is the principal source of knowledge and skills.[83] The neologism "e-learning 1.0" refers to direct instruction used in early computer-based learning and training systems (CBL). In contrast to that linear delivery of content, often directly from the instructor's material, CSCL uses social software such as blogs, social media, wikis, podcasts, cloud-based document portals, discussion groups and virtual worlds.[87] This phenomenon has been referred to as Long Tail Learning.[88] Advocates of social learning claim that one of the best ways to learn something is to teach it to others.[88] Social networks have been used to foster online learning communities around subjects as diverse as test preparation and language education. Mobile-assisted language learning (MALL) is the use of handheld computers or cell phones to assist in language learning.

Collaborative apps allow students and teachers to interact while studying. Apps are designed after games, which provide a fun way to revise. When the experience is enjoyable, the students become more engaged. Games also usually come with a sense of progression, which can help keep students motivated and consistent while trying to improve.[89]

Classroom 2.0 refers to online multi-user virtual environments (MUVEs) that connect schools across geographical frontiers. Known as "eTwinning", computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) allows learners in one school to communicate with learners in another that they would not get to know otherwise,[90][91] enhancing educational outcomes[92] and cultural integration.

Further, many researchers distinguish between collaborative and cooperative approaches to group learning. For example, Roschelle and Teasley (1995) argue that "cooperation is accomplished by the division of labor among participants, as an activity where each person is responsible for a portion of the problem solving", in contrast with collaboration that involves the "mutual engagement of participants in a coordinated effort to solve the problem together."[93]

Social technology, and social media specifically, provides avenues for student learning that would not be available otherwise. For example, it provides ordinary students a chance to exist in the same room as, and share a dialogue with researchers, politicians, and activists. This is because it vaporizes the geographical barriers that would otherwise separate people.[94] Simplified, social media gives students a reach that provides them with opportunities and conversations that allow them to grow as communicators.[95]

Social technologies like Twitter can provide students with an archive of free data that goes back multiple decades. Many classrooms and educators are already taking advantage of this free resource—for example, researchers and educators at the University of Central Florida in 2011 used Tweets posted relating to emergencies like Hurricane Irene as data points, in order to teach their students how to code data.[96][97] Social media technologies also allow instructors the ability to show students how professional networks facilitate work on a technical level.[98]

Flipped classroom

Main article: Flipped classroom

This is an instructional strategy where the majority of the initial learning occurs first at home using technology. Then, students will engage with higher-order learning tasks in the classroom with the teacher.[99] Often, online tools are used for the individual at-home learning, such as: educational videos, learning management systems, interactive tools, and other web-based resources.[100][101] Some advantages of flipped learning include improved learning performance, enhanced student satisfaction and engagement, flexibility in learning, and increased interaction opportunities between students and instructors.[102][103][104] On the other hand, the disadvantages of flipped learning involve challenges related to student motivation, internet accessibility, quality of videos, and increased workload for teachers.[105][106]

The large majority of studies focusing on the success of flipped learning are in the higher education context.[107]

Technologies

A 2.5 m teaching slide rule compared to a normal sized model

Educational media and tools can be used for:

• task structuring support: help with how to do a task (procedures and processes),
• access to knowledge bases (help user find information needed)
• alternate forms of knowledge representation (multiple representations of knowledge, e.g. video, audio, text, image, data)

Numerous types of physical technology are currently used:[108][109] digital cameras, video cameras, interactive whiteboard tools, document cameras, electronic media, and LCD projectors. Combinations of these techniques include blogs, collaborative software, ePortfolios, and virtual classrooms.[110]

The current design of this type of application includes the evaluation through tools of cognitive analysis that allow one to identify which elements optimize the use of these platforms.[111]

Audio and video

Preparation for training teachers on the subject of Wikipedia - Center for Educational Technology

Video technology[112] has included VHS tapes and DVDs, as well as on-demand and synchronous methods with digital video via server or web-based options such as streamed video and webcams. Videotelephony can connect with speakers and other experts. Interactive digital video games are being used at K-12 and higher education institutions.[113]

Radio offers a synchronous educational vehicle while streaming audio over the internet with webcasts and podcasts can be asynchronous. Classroom microphones, often wireless, can enable learners and educators to interact more clearly.

Screencasting allows users to share their screens directly from their browser and make the video available online so that other viewers can stream the video directly.[114] The presenter thus has the ability to show their ideas and flow of thoughts rather than simply explain them as simple text content. In combination with audio and video, the educator can mimic the one-on-one experience of the classroom. Learners have the ability to pause and rewind, to review at their own pace, something a classroom cannot always offer.

Webcams and webcasting have enabled the creation of virtual classrooms and virtual learning environments.[115] Webcams are also being used to counter plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty that might occur in an e-learning environment.

Computers, tablets, and mobile devices

Teaching and learning online

Collaborative learning is a group-based learning approach in which learners are mutually engaged in a coordinated fashion to achieve a learning goal or complete a learning task. With recent developments in smartphone technology, the processing powers and storage capabilities of modern mobiles allow for advanced development and the use of apps. Many app developers and education experts have been exploring smartphone and tablet apps as a medium for collaborative learning.

Computers and tablets enable learners and educators to access websites as well as applications. Many mobile devices support m-learning.[116]

Mobile devices such as clickers and smartphones can be used for interactive audience response feedback.[117] Mobile learning can provide performance support for checking the time, setting reminders, retrieving worksheets, and instruction manuals.[118][119]

Such devices as iPads are used for helping disabled (visually impaired or with multiple disabilities) children in communication development as well as in improving physiological activity, according to the stimulation Practice Report.[120]

Studies in pre-school (early learning), primary and secondary education have explored how digital devices are used to enable effective learning outcomes, and create systems that can support teachers.[121] Digital technology can improve teaching and learning by motivating students with engaging, interactive, and fun learning environments. These online interactions enable further opportunities to develop digital literacy, 21st century skills, and digital citizenship.[121]

Single-board computers and Internet of Things

Embedded single-board computers and microcontrollers such as Raspberry Pi, Arduino and BeagleBone are easy to program, some can run Linux and connect to devices such as sensors, displays, LEDs and robotics. These are cost effective computing devices ideal for learning programming, which work with cloud computing and the Internet of Things. The Internet of things refers to a type of network to connect anything with the Internet-based on stipulated protocols through information sensing equipment to conduct information exchange and communications to achieve smart recognitions, positioning, tracking, monitoring, and administration.[122] These devices are part of a Maker culture that embraces tinkering with electronics and programming to achieve software and hardware solutions. The Maker Culture means there is a huge amount of training and support available.[123]

Collaborative and social learning

Further information: Social media in education

Group webpages, blogs, wikis, and Twitter allow learners and educators to post thoughts, ideas, and comments on a website in an interactive learning environment.[124][125] Social networking sites are virtual communities for people interested in a particular subject to communicate by voice, chat, instant message, video conference, or blogs.[126] The National School Boards Association found that 96% of students with online access have used social networking technologies and more than 50% talk online about schoolwork. Social networking encourages collaboration and engagement[127] and can be a motivational tool for self-efficacy amongst students.[128]

Whiteboards

Main articles: Whiteboard and Interactive whiteboard

Combination whiteboard and bulletin board

Interactive whiteboard in 2007

There are three types of whiteboards.[129] The initial whiteboards, analogous to blackboards, date from the late 1950s. The term whiteboard is also used metaphorically to refer to virtual whiteboards in which computer software applications simulate whiteboards by allowing writing or drawing. This is a common feature of groupware for virtual meetings, collaboration, and instant messaging. Interactive whiteboards allow learners and instructors to write on the touch screen. The screen markup can be on either a blank whiteboard or any computer screen content. Depending on permission settings, this visual learning can be interactive and participatory, including writing and manipulating images on the interactive whiteboard.[129]

Virtual classroom

Main articles: Virtual Learning Environment and MUVE

A virtual learning environment (VLE), also known as a learning platform, simulates a virtual classroom or meeting by simultaneously mixing several communication technologies.[130]Web conferencing software enables students and instructors to communicate with each other via webcam, microphone, and real-time chatting in a group setting. Participants can raise their hands, answer polls, or take tests. Students can whiteboard and screencast when given rights by the instructor, who sets permission levels for text notes, microphone rights, and mouse control.[131]

A virtual classroom provides an opportunity for students to receive direct instruction from a qualified teacher in an interactive environment.[132] Learners can have direct and immediate access to their instructor for instant feedback and direction. The virtual classroom provides a structured schedule of classes, which can be helpful for students who may find the freedom of asynchronous learning to be overwhelming. Besides, the virtual classroom provides a social learning environment that replicates the traditional "brick and mortar" classroom.[133] Most virtual classroom applications provide a recording feature. Each class is recorded and stored on a server, which allows for instant playback of any class over the course of the school year. This can be extremely useful for students to retrieve missed material or review concepts for an upcoming exam. Parents and auditors have the conceptual ability to monitor any classroom to ensure that they are satisfied with the education the learner is receiving.

In higher education especially, a virtual learning environment (VLE) is sometimes combined with a management information system (MIS) to create a managed learning environment, in which all aspects of a course are handled through a consistent user interface throughout the institution.[134] Physical universities and newer online-only colleges offer to select academic degrees and certificate programs via the Internet. Some programs require students to attend some campus classes or orientations, but many are delivered completely online. Several universities offer online student support services, such as online advising and registration, e-counseling, online textbook purchases, student governments, and student newspapers.[135]

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many schools have been forced to move online. As of April 2020, an estimated 90% of high-income countries are offering online learning, with only 25% of low-income countries offering the same.[136]

Augmented reality

Augmented reality (AR) provides students and teachers with the opportunity to create layers of digital information, including both virtual worlds and real-world elements, to interact in real-time.

AR technology plays an important role in the future of the classroom where human -I co-orchestration takes place seamlessly.[137] Students would switch between individual and collaborative learning dynamically, based on their own learning pace, while teachers, with the help of AR, monitor the classroom and provide necessary interventions in cases where computer systems are not yet designed to handle certain aspects. In this vision, the technology's role is to enhance, rather than replace, human teachers' capabilities.

Learning management system

Main article: Learning management system

Learning management system

A learning management system (LMS) is software used for delivering, tracking, and managing training and education. It tracks data about attendance, time on task, and student progress. Educators can post announcements, grade assignments, check on course activities, and participate in class discussions. Students can submit their work, read and respond to discussion questions, and take quizzes.[124] An LMS may allow teachers, administrators, and students, and permitted additional parties (such as parents, if appropriate) to track various metrics. LMSs range from systems for managing training/educational records to software for distributing courses over the Internet and offering features for online collaboration. The creation and maintenance of comprehensive learning content require substantial initial and ongoing investments in human labor. Effective translation into other languages and cultural contexts requires even more investment by knowledgeable personnel.[138]

Internet-based learning management systems include Canvas, Blackboard Inc. and Moodle. These types of LMS allow educators to run a learning system partially or fully online, asynchronously or synchronously. Learning Management Systems also offers a non-linear presentation of content and curricular goals, giving students the choice of pace and order of information learned.[23] Blackboard can be used for K-12 education, Higher Education, Business, and Government collaboration.[139] Moodle is a free-to-download Open Source Course Management System that provides blended learning opportunities as well as platforms for distance learning courses.[140]

Learning content management system

A learning content management system (LCMS) is software for author content (courses, reusable content objects). An LCMS may be solely dedicated to producing and publishing content that is hosted on an LMS, or it can host the content itself. The Aviation Industry Computer-Based Training Committee (AICC) specification provides support for content that is hosted separately from the LMS.

A recent trend in LCMSs is to address this issue through crowdsourcing (cf.SlideWiki[141]).

Computer-aided assessment

Computer-aided assessment (e-assessment) ranges from automated multiple-choice tests to more sophisticated systems. With some systems, feedback can be geared towards a student's specific mistakes, or the computer can navigate the student through a series of questions adapting to what the student appears to have learned or not learned. Formative assessment sifts out the incorrect answers, and these questions are then explained by the teacher. The learner then practices with slight variations of the sifted-out questions.[142] The process is completed by summative assessment using a new set of questions that only cover the topics previously taught.

Training management system

A training management system or training resource management system is software designed to optimize instructor-led training management. Similar to an enterprise resource planning (ERP), it is a back office tool that aims at streamlining every aspect of the training process: planning (training plan and budget forecasting), logistics (scheduling and resource management), financials (cost tracking, profitability), reporting, and sales for-profit training providers.[143] A training management system can be used to schedule instructors, venues, and equipment through graphical agendas, optimize resource utilization, create a training plan and track remaining budgets, generate reports and share data between different teams.

While training management systems focus on managing instructor-led training, they can complete an LMS. In this situation, an LMS will manage e-learning delivery and assessment, while a training management system will manage ILT and back-office budget planning, logistics, and reporting.[144]

Standards and ecosystem

Learning objects

Main article: Learning object

Content

Content and design architecture issues include pedagogy and learning object re-use. One approach looks at five aspects:[145]

• Fact – unique data (e.g. symbols for Excel formula, or the parts that make up a learning objective)
• Concept – a category that includes multiple examples (e.g. Excel formulas, or the various types/theories of instructional design)
• Process – a flow of events or activities (e.g. how a spreadsheet works, or the five phases in ADDIE)
• Procedure – step-by-step task (e.g. entering a formula into a spreadsheet or the steps that should be followed within a phase in ADDIE)
• Strategic principle – a task performed by adapting guidelines (e.g. doing a financial projection in a spreadsheet, or using a framework for designing learning environments)

Pedagogical elements

Human respiratory system pedagogical

Pedagogical elements are defined as structures or units of educational material. They are the educational content that is to be delivered. These units are independent of format, meaning that although the unit may be delivered in various ways, the pedagogical structures themselves are not the textbook, web page, video conference, Podcast, lesson, assignment, multiple-choice question, quiz, discussion group or a case study, all of which are possible methods of delivery.

Learning objects standards

Much effort has been put into the technical reuse of electronically based teaching materials and, in particular, creating or re-using learning objects. These are self-contained units that are properly tagged with keywords, or other metadata, and often stored in an XML file format. Creating a course requires putting together a sequence of learning objects. There are both proprietary and open, non-commercial and commercial, peer-reviewed repositories of learning objects such as the Merlot repository. Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM) is a collection of standards and specifications that applies to certain web-based e-learning. Other specifications, such as Schools Interoperability Framework, allow for the transporting of learning objects, or for categorizing metadata (LOM).

Artificial intelligence

Main article: Artificial intelligence

The academic study and development of artificial intelligence can be dated to at least 1956 when cognitive scientists began to investigate thought and learning processes in humans and machines. The earliest uses of AI in education can be traced to the development of intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) and their application in enhancing educational experiences.[146] They are designed to provide immediate and personalized feedback to students.[147] The incentive to develop ITS comes from educational studies showing that individual tutoring is much more effective than group teaching,[148][149] in addition to the need for promoting learning on a larger scale. Over the years, a combination of Cognitive science and data-driven techniques have greatly enhanced the capabilities of ITS, allowing it to model a wide range of students' characteristics, such as knowledge,[150] affect,[151] off-task behavior,[152] and wheel spinning.[153] There is ample evidence that ITS are highly effective in helping students learn.[154] ITS can be used to keep students in the zone of proximal development (ZPD): the space wherein students may learn with guidance. Such systems can guide students through tasks slightly above their ability level.[155]

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) emerged with the introduction of ChatGPT in November 2022.[156] This caused alarm among K-12 and higher education institutions,[157] with a few large school districts quickly banning GenAI,[158] due to concerns about potential academic misconduct.[159] However, as the debate developed,[160] these bans were largely reversed within a few months.[161] To combat academic misconduct, detection tools have been developed.[162][163]

There have been various use cases in education, including providing personalized feedback, brainstorming classroom activities, support for students with special needs, streamlining administrative tasks, and simplifying assessment processes.[164] However, there are concerns that GenAI's can output incorrect information, also known as hallucination.[156] The results from GenAI can also be biased,[165] leading to calls for transparency regarding the data used to train GenAI models and their use.[156][166] Providing professional development for teachers and developing policies and regulations can help mitigate the ethical concerns of GenAI.[156][165] And while AI systems can provide individualized instruction and adaptive feedback to students, they have the potential to impact students' well-being and sense of classroom community.

Settings and sectors

Preschool

Preschool class

Various forms of electronic media can be a feature of preschool life.[167] Although parents report a positive experience, the impact of such use has not been systematically assessed.[167]

Preschool activity

The age when a given child might start using a particular technology, such as a cellphone or computer, might depend on matching a technological resource to the recipient's developmental capabilities, such as the age-anticipated stages labeled by Swiss psychologist, Jean Piaget.[168] Parameters, such as age-appropriateness, coherence with sought-after values, and concurrent entertainment and educational aspects, have been suggested for choosing media.[169]

At the preschool level, technology can be introduced in several ways. At the most basic is the use of computers, tablets, and audio and video resources in classrooms.[170] Additionally, there are many resources available for parents and educators to introduce technology to young children or to use technology to augment lessons and enhance learning. Some options that are age-appropriate are video- or audio-recording of their creations, introducing them to the use of the internet through browsing age-appropriate websites, providing assistive technology to allow disabled children to participate with the rest of their peers,[171] educational apps, electronic books, and educational videos.[172] There are many free and paid educational website and apps that are directly targeting the educational needs of preschool children. These include Starfall, ABC mouse,[172] PBS Kids Video, Teach me, and Montessori crosswords.[173] Educational technology in the form of electronic books [109] offer preschool children the option to store and retrieve several books on one device, thus bringing together the traditional action of reading along with the use of educational technology. Educational technology is also thought to improve hand-eye coordination, language skills, visual attention, and motivation to complete educational tasks, and allows children to experience things they otherwise would not.[121] There are several keys to making the most educational use of introducing technology at the preschool level: technology must be used appropriately, should allow access to learning opportunities, should include the interaction of parents and other adults with the preschool children, and should be developmentally appropriate.[174] Allowing access to learning opportunities especially for allowing disabled children to have access to learning opportunities, giving bilingual children the opportunity to communicate and learn in more than one language, bringing in more information about STEM subjects, and bringing in images of diversity that may be lacking in the child's immediate environment.[174]

Coding is also becoming part of the early learning curriculum and preschool-aged children can benefit from experiences that teach coding skills even in a screen-free way. There are activities and games that teach hands-on coding skills that prepare students for the coding concepts they will encounter and use in the future.[175] Minecraft and Roblox are two popular coding and programming apps being adopted by institutions that offer free or low-cost access.[175]

Primary and secondary

Main article: Primary education

Teacher showing primary school students how to work a program at a primary school in Santa Fe, Mexico City

E-learning is utilized by public K–12 schools in the United States as well as private schools. Some e-learning environments take place in a traditional classroom; others allow students to attend classes from home or other locations. There are several states that are utilizing virtual school platforms for e-learning across the country which continue to increase. Virtual school enables students to log into synchronous learning or asynchronous learning courses anywhere there is an internet connection.

World Vision Higher Secondary College - Wikipedia Education Program

E-learning is increasingly being utilized by students who may not want to go to traditional brick-and-mortar schools due to severe allergies or other medical issues, fear of school violence and school bullying, and students whose parents would like to homeschool but do not feel qualified.[176] Online schools create a haven for students to receive a quality education while almost completely avoiding these common problems. Online charter schools also often are not limited by location, income level, or class size in the way brick and mortar charter schools are.[177]

A student attending online class in Kerala, India, during the COVID-19 pandemic

E-learning also has been rising as a supplement to the traditional classroom. Students with special talents or interests outside of the available curricula use e-learning to advance their skills or exceed grade restrictions.[178] Some online institutions connect students with instructors via web conference technology to form a digital classroom.

National private schools are also available online. These provide the benefits of e-learning to students in states where charter online schools are not available. They also may allow students greater flexibility and exemption from state testing. Some of these schools are available at the high school level and offer college prep courses to students.

Virtual education in K-12 schooling often refers to virtual schools, and in higher education to virtual universities. Virtual schools are "cybercharter schools"[179] with innovative administrative models and course delivery technology.[179]

Education technology also seems to be an interesting method of engaging gifted youths that are under-stimulated in their current educational program.[180] This can be achieved with after-school programs or even technologically-integrated curricula, for example: Virtual reality integrated courses (VRIC) can be developed for any course in order to give them such stimulation.[181] 3D printing integrated courses (3dPIC) can also give youths the stimulation they need in their educational journey.[182] Université de Montréal's Projet SEUR[183] in collaboration with Collège Mont-Royal and La Variable are heavily developing this field.[184]

Higher education

Main article: Online learning in higher education

Wikimedia Taiwan 10 Anniversary Conference Combining the Education and Wikimedia in Taiwan Taking the Higher Education as an Example

Online college course enrollment has seen a 29% increase in enrollment with nearly one-third of all college students, or an estimated 6.7 million students are currently enrolled in online classes.[185][186] In 2009, 44% of post-secondary students in the USA were taking some or all of their courses online, which was projected to rise to 81% by 2014.[187]

Although a large proportion of for-profit higher education institutions now offer online classes, only about half of private, non-profit schools do so. Private institutions may become more involved with online presentations as the costs decrease. Properly trained staff must also be hired to work with students online.[188] These staff members need to understand the content area, and also be highly trained in the use of the computer and Internet. Online education is rapidly increasing, and online doctoral programs have even developed at leading research universities.[189]

Although massive open online courses (MOOCs) may have limitations that preclude them from fully replacing college education,[190] such programs have significantly expanded. MIT, Stanford and Princeton University offer classes to a global audience, but not for college credit.[191] University-level programs, like edX founded by Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University, offer a wide range of disciplines at no charge, while others permit students to audit a course at no charge but require a small fee for accreditation. MOOCs have not had a significant impact on higher education and declined after the initial expansion, but are expected to remain in some form.[192] Lately, MOOCs are used by smaller universities to profile themselves with highly specialized courses for special-interest audiences, as for example in a course on technological privacy compliance.[193]

MOOCs have been observed to lose the majority of their initial course participants. In a study performed by Cornell and Stanford universities, student-drop-out rates from MOOCs have been attributed to student anonymity, the solitude of the learning experience, and to the lack of interaction with peers and with teachers.[194] Effective student engagement measures that reduce drop-outs are forum interactions and virtual teacher or teaching assistant presence - measures which induce staff cost that grows with the number of participating students.

Corporate and professional

E-learning is being used by companies to deliver mandatory compliance training and updates for regulatory compliance, soft skills and IT skills training, continuing professional development (CPD), and other valuable workplace skills.[195] Companies with spread out distribution chains use e-learning for delivering information about the latest product developments. Most corporate e-learning is asynchronous and delivered and managed via learning management systems.[196] The big challenge in corporate e-learning is to engage the staff, especially on compliance topics for which periodic staff training is mandated by the law or regulations.[195]

Government and public

E-Learning and Educational Technology is used by governmental bodies to train staff and civil service. However, government agencies also have an interest in promoting digital technology use, and improving skills amongst the people they serve. Educational Technology has been used in such training provision. For example, in the UK, the Skills Bootcamp scheme aims to improve the skillset of general population through the use of educational technological training.[197] Government agencies act to promote the use of Educational Technology in schools and by private enterprise.

Benefits

Effective technology use deploys multiple evidence-based strategies concurrently (e.g. adaptive content, frequent testing, immediate feedback, etc.), as do effective teachers.[198] Using computers or other forms of technology can give students practice on core content and skills while the teacher can work with others, conduct assessments, or perform other tasks.[198][199] Through the use of educational technology, education is able to be individualized for each student allowing for better differentiation and allowing students to work for mastery at their own pace.[200]

Modern educational technology can improve access to education,[201] including full degree programs.[202] It enables better integration for non-full-time students, particularly in continuing education,[201] and improved interactions between students and instructors.[203][202] Learning material can be used for long-distance learning and are accessible to a wider audience.[204][201] Course materials are easy to access.[205][201] In 2010, 70.3% of American family households had access to the internet.[206] In 2013, according to Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission Canada, 79% of homes have access to the internet.[207] Students can access and engage with numerous online resources at home. Using online resources can help students spend more time on specific aspects of what they may be learning in school but at home. Schools like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have made certain course materials free online.[208] Although some aspects of a classroom setting are missed by using these resources, they are helpful tools to add additional support to the educational system. The necessity to pay for transport to the educational facility is removed.

Students appreciate the convenience of e-learning, but report greater engagement in face-to-face learning environments.[209] Colleges and universities are working towards combating this issue by utilizing WEB 2.0 technologies as well as incorporating more mentorships between students and faculty members.[210]

According to James Kulik, who studies the effectiveness of computers used for instruction, students usually learn more in less time when receiving computer-based instruction, and they like classes more and develop more positive attitudes toward computers in computer-based classes. Students can independently solve problems.[203] There are no intrinsic age-based restrictions on difficulty level, i.e. students can go at their own pace. Students editing their written work on word processors improve the quality of their writing. According to some studies, the students are better at critiquing and editing written work that is exchanged over a computer network with students they know.[205] Studies completed in "computer intensive" settings found increases in student-centric, cooperative, and higher-order learning, writing skills, problem-solving, and using technology.[211] In addition, attitudes toward technology as a learning tool by parents, students, and teachers are also improved.

Employers' acceptance of online education has risen over time.[212] More than 50% of human resource managers SHRM surveyed for an August 2010 report said that if two candidates with the same level of experience were applying for a job, it would not have any kind of effect whether the candidate's obtained degree was acquired through an online or a traditional school. Seventy-nine percent said they had employed a candidate with an online degree in the past 12 months. However, 66% said candidates who get degrees online were not seen as positively as job applicants with traditional degrees.[212]

The use of educational apps generally has a positive effect on learning. Pre- and post-tests have revealed that the use of educational apps on mobile devices reduces the achievement gap between struggling and average students.[213] Some educational apps improve group work by allowing students to receive feedback on answers and promoting collaboration in solving problems. The benefits of app-assisted learning have been exhibited in all age groups. Kindergarten students that use iPads show much higher rates of literacy than non-users. Medical students at the University of California Irvine that utilized iPad academically have been reported to score 23% higher on national exams than in previous classes that did not.

Disadvantages

Globally, factors like change management, technology obsolescence, and vendor-developer partnership are major restraints that are hindering the growth of the Educational technology market.[214]

In the US, state and federal government increased funding, as well as private venture capital, has been flowing into the education sector. However, as of 2013^[update], none were looking at technology return on investment (ROI) to connect expenditures on technology with improved student outcomes.[215]

New technologies are frequently accompanied by unrealistic hype and promise regarding their transformative power to change education for the better or in allowing better educational opportunities to reach the masses. Examples include silent film, broadcast radio, and television, none of which have maintained much of a foothold in the daily practices of mainstream, formal education.[216] Technology, in and of itself, does not necessarily result in fundamental improvements to educational practice.[217] The focus needs to be on the learner's interaction with technology—not the technology itself. It needs to be recognized as "ecological" rather than "additive" or "subtractive". In this ecological change, one significant change will create total change.[218]

According to Branford et al., "technology does not guarantee effective learning", and inappropriate use of technology can even hinder it.[23] A University of Washington study of infant vocabulary shows that it is slipping due to educational baby DVDs. Published in the Journal of Pediatrics, a 2007 University of Washington study on the vocabulary of babies surveyed over 1,000 parents in Washington and Minnesota. The study found that for every hour that babies 8–16 months of age watched DVDs and videos, they knew 6-8 fewer of 90 common baby words than the babies that did not watch them. Andrew Meltzoff, a surveyor in this study, states that the result makes sense, that if the baby's "alert time" is spent in front of DVDs and TV, instead of with people speaking, the babies are not going to get the same linguistic experience. Dimitri Chistakis, another surveyor reported that the evidence is mounting that baby DVDs are of no value and may be harmful.[219][220][221][222]

Adaptive instructional materials tailor questions to each student's ability and calculate their scores, but this encourages students to work individually rather than socially or collaboratively (Kruse, 2013). Social relationships are important, but high-tech environments may compromise the balance of trust, care, and respect between teacher and student.[223]

Massively open online courses (MOOCs), although quite popular in discussions of technology and education in developed countries (more so in the US), are not a major concern in most developing or low-income countries. One of the stated goals of MOOCs is to provide less fortunate populations (i.e., in developing countries) an opportunity to experience courses with US-style content and structure. However, research shows only 3% of the registrants are from low-income countries, and although many courses have thousands of registered students only 5-10% of them complete the course.[224] This can be attributed to lack of staff support, course difficulty, and low levels of engagement with peers.[225] MOOCs also implies that certain curriculum and teaching methods are superior, and this could eventually wash over (or possibly washing out) local educational institutions, cultural norms, and educational traditions.[226]

With the Internet and social media, using educational apps makes students highly susceptible to distraction and sidetracking. Even though proper use has been shown to increase student performance, being distracted would be detrimental. Another disadvantage is an increased potential for cheating.[227] One method is done by creating multiple accounts to survey questions and gather information which can be assimilated so that the master account is able to fill in the correct answers. Smartphones can be very easy to hide and use inconspicuously, especially if their use is normalized in the classroom. These disadvantages can be managed with strict rules and regulations on mobile phone use.

A disadvantage of e-learning is that it can cause depression, according to a study made during the 2021 COVID-19 quarantines.[228]

Over-stimulation

Electronic devices such as cell phones and computers facilitate rapid access to a stream of sources, each of which may receive cursory attention. Michel Rich, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and executive director of the center on Media and Child Health in Boston, said of the digital generation, "Their brains are rewarded not for staying on task, but for jumping to the next thing. The worry is we're raising a generation of kids in front of screens whose brains are going to be wired differently."[229] Students have always faced distractions; computers and cell phones are a particular challenge because the stream of data can interfere with focusing and learning. Although these technologies affect adults too, young people may be more influenced by it as their developing brains can easily become habituated to switching tasks and become unaccustomed to sustaining attention.[229] Too much information, coming too rapidly, can overwhelm thinking.[230]

Technology is "rapidly and profoundly altering our brains."[231] High exposure levels stimulate brain cell alteration and release neurotransmitters, which causes the strengthening of some neural pathways and the weakening of others. This leads to heightened stress levels on the brain that, at first, boost energy levels, but, over time, actually augment memory, impair cognition, lead to depression, and alter the neural circuitry of the hippocampus, amygdala and prefrontal cortex. These are the brain regions that control mood and thought. If unchecked, the underlying structure of the brain could be altered.[229][231] Overstimulation due to technology may begin too young. When children are exposed before the age of seven, important developmental tasks may be delayed, and bad learning habits might develop, which "deprives children of the exploration and play that they need to develop."[232] Media psychology is an emerging specialty field that embraces electronic devices and the sensory behaviors occurring from the use of educational technology in learning.

Sociocultural criticism

According to Lai, "the learning environment is a complex system where the interplay and interactions of many things impact the outcome of learning."[217] When technology is brought into an educational setting, the pedagogical setting changes in that technology-driven teaching can change the entire meaning of an activity without adequate research validation. If technology monopolizes an activity, students can begin to develop the sense that "life would scarcely be thinkable without technology."[233]

Leo Marx considered the word "technology" itself as problematic,[234] susceptible to reification and "phantom objectivity", which conceals its fundamental nature as something that is only valuable insofar as it benefits the human condition. Technology ultimately comes down to affecting the relations between people, but this notion is obfuscated when technology is treated as an abstract notion devoid of good and evil. Langdon Winner makes a similar point by arguing that the underdevelopment of the philosophy of technology leaves us with an overly simplistic reduction in our discourse to the supposedly dichotomous notions of the "making" versus the "uses" of new technologies and that a narrow focus on "use" leads us to believe that all technologies are neutral in moral standing.[233]: ix–39  These critiques would have us ask not, "How do we maximize the role or advancement of technology in education?", but, rather, "What are the social and human consequences of adopting any particular technology?"

Winner viewed technology as a "form of life" that not only aids human activity, but that also represents a powerful force in reshaping that activity and its meaning.[233]: ix–39  For example, the use of robots in the industrial workplace may increase productivity, but they also radically change the process of production itself, thereby redefining what is meant by "work" in such a setting. In education, standardized testing has arguably redefined the notions of learning and assessment. We rarely explicitly reflect on how strange a notion it is that a number between, say, 0 and 100 could accurately reflect a person's knowledge about the world. According to Winner, the recurring patterns in everyday life tend to become an unconscious process that we learn to take for granted. Winner writes,

By far, the greatest latitude of choice exists the very first time a particular instrument, system, or technique is introduced. Because choices tend to become strongly fixed in material equipment, economic investment, and social habit, the original flexibility vanishes for all practical purposes once the initial commitments are made. In that sense, technological innovations are similar to legislative acts or political findings that establish a framework for public order that will endure over many generations. (p. 29)

When adopting new technologies, there may be one best chance to "get it right". Seymour Papert (p. 32) points out a good example of a (bad) choice that has become strongly fixed in social habit and material equipment: our "choice" to use the QWERTY keyboard.[235] The QWERTY arrangement of letters on the keyboard was originally chosen, not because it was the most efficient for typing, but because early typewriters were prone to jam when adjacent keys were struck in quick succession. Now that typing has become a digital process, this is no longer an issue, but the QWERTY arrangement lives on as a social habit, one that is very difficult to change.

Neil Postman endorsed the notion that technology impacts human cultures, including the culture of classrooms, and that this is a consideration even more important than considering the efficiency of new technology as a tool for teaching.[218] Regarding the computer's impact on education, Postman writes (p. 19):

What we need to consider about the computer has nothing to do with its efficiency as a teaching tool. We need to know in what ways it is altering our conception of learning, and how in conjunction with television, it undermines the old idea of school.

There is an assumption that technology is inherently interesting so it must be helpful in education; based on research by Daniel Willingham, that is not always the case. He argues that it does not necessarily matter what the technological medium is, but whether or not the content is engaging and utilizes the medium in a beneficial way.[236]

Digital divide

Main article: Digital divide

The concept of the digital divide is a gap between those who have access to digital technologies and those who do not.[237] Access may be associated with age, gender, socio-economic status, education, income, ethnicity, and geography.[237][238]

Data protection

According to a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, large amounts of personal data on children are collected by electronic devices that are distributed in schools in the United States. Often, far more information than necessary is collected, uploaded, and stored indefinitely. Aside from name and date of birth, this information can include the child's browsing history, search terms, location data, contact lists, as well as behavioral information.[239]: 5  Parents are not informed or, if informed, have little choice.[239]: 6  According to the report, this constant surveillance resulting from educational technology can "warp children's privacy expectations, lead them to self-censor, and limit their creativity".[239]: 7  In a 2018 public service announcement, the FBI warned that widespread collection of student information by educational technologies, including web browsing history, academic progress, medical information, and biometrics, created the potential for privacy and safety threats if such data was compromised or exploited.[240]

Data security breach

The transition from in-person learning to distance education in higher education due to the COVID-19 pandemic has led to enhanced extraction of student data enabled by complex data infrastructures. These infrastructures collect information such as learning management system logins, library metrics, impact measurements, teacher evaluation frameworks, assessment systems, learning analytic traces, longitudinal graduate outcomes, attendance records, social media activity, and so on. The copious amounts of information collected are quantified for the marketization of higher education, employing this data as a means to demonstrate and compare student performance across institutions to attract prospective students, mirroring the capitalistic notion of ensuring efficient market functioning and constant improvement through measurement.[241] This desire of data has fueled the exploitation of higher education by platform companies and data service providers who are outsourced by institutions for their services. The monetization of student data in order to integrate corporate models of marketization further pushes higher education, widely regarded as a public good, into a privatized commercial sector.[242]

Teacher training

Since technology is not the end goal of education, but rather a means by which it can be accomplished, educators must have a good grasp of the technology and its advantages and disadvantages. Teacher training aims for the effective integration of classroom technology.[243]

Teacher training in Naura

The evolving nature of technology may unsettle teachers, who may experience themselves as perpetual novices.[244] Finding quality materials to support classroom objectives is often difficult. Random professional development days are inadequate.[244]

According to Jenkins, "Rather than dealing with each technology in isolation, we would do better to take an ecological approach, thinking about the interrelationship among different communication technologies, the cultural communities that grow up around them, and the activities they support."[238] Jenkins also suggested that the traditional school curriculum guided teachers to train students to be autonomous problem solvers.[238] However, today's workers are increasingly asked to work in teams, drawing on different sets of expertise, and collaborating to solve problems.[238] Learning styles and the methods of collecting information have evolved, and "students often feel locked out of the worlds described in their textbooks through the depersonalized and abstract prose used to describe them".[238] These twenty-first-century skills can be attained through the incorporation and engagement with technology.[245] Changes in instruction and use of technology can also promote a higher level of learning among students with different types of intelligence.[246]

Assessment

Main articles: Educational assessment and Electronic assessment

There are two distinct issues of assessment: the assessment of educational technology[238][247] and assessment with technology.[248]

Assessments of educational technology have included the Follow Through project.

Educational assessment with technology may be either formative assessment or summative assessment. Instructors use both types of assessments to understand student progress and learning in the classroom. Technology has helped teachers create better assessments to help understand where students who are having trouble with the material are having issues.

Formative assessment is more difficult, as the perfect form is ongoing and allows the students to show their learning in different ways depending on their learning styles. Technology has helped some teachers make their formative assessments better, particularly through the use of a classroom response system (CRS).[249] A CRS is a tool in which the students each have a handheld device that partners up with the teacher's computer. The instructor then asks multiple choice or true or false questions and the students answer on their devices.[249] Depending on the software used, the answers may then be shown on a graph so students and the teacher can see the percentage of students who gave each answer and the teacher can focus on what went wrong.[250]

Classroom response systems have a history going back to late 1960s and early 1970s, when analogue electronics were used in their implementations.[251] There were a few commercial products available, but they were costly and some universities preferred to build their own.[252] The first such system appears to have been put into place at Stanford University, but it suffered from difficulties in use.[251] Another early system was one designed and built by Raphael M. Littauer, a professor of physics at Cornell University, and used for large lecture courses.[252][253] It was more successful than most of the other early systems, in part because the designer of the system was also the instructor using it.[251] A subsequent classroom response technologies involved H-ITT with infrared devices.[253]

Summative assessments are more common in classrooms and are usually set up to be more easily graded, as they take the form of tests or projects with specific grading schemes. One huge benefit of tech-based testing is the option to give students immediate feedback on their answers. When students get these responses, they are able to know how they are doing in the class which can help push them to improve or give them confidence that they are doing well.[254] Technology also allows for different kinds of summative assessment, such as digital presentations, videos, or anything else the teacher/students may come up with, which allows different learners to show what they learned more effectively.[254] Teachers can also use technology to post graded assessments online for students to have a better idea of what a good project is.

Electronic assessment uses information technology. It encompasses several potential applications, which may be teacher or student-oriented, including educational assessment throughout the continuum of learning, such as computerized classification testing, computerized adaptive testing, student testing, and grading an exam. E-Marking is an examiner-led activity closely related to other e-assessment activities such as e-testing, or e-learning which are student-led. E-marking allows markers to mark a scanned script or online response on a computer screen rather than on paper.

There are no restrictions on the types of tests that can use e-marking, with e-marking applications designed to accommodate multiple choice, written, and even video submissions for performance examinations. E-marking software is used by individual educational institutions and can also be rolled out to the participating schools of awarding exam organizations. E-marking has been used to mark many well-known high stakes examinations, which in the United Kingdom include A levels and GCSE exams, and in the US includes the SAT test for college admissions. Ofqual reports that e-marking is the main type of marking used for general qualifications in the United Kingdom.

In 2014, the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) announced that most of the National 5 question papers would be e-marked.[255]

In June 2015, the Odisha state government in India announced that it planned to use e-marking for all Plus II papers from 2016.[256]

Analytics

The importance of self-assessment through tools made available on educational technology platforms has been growing. Self-assessment in education technology relies on students analyzing their strengths, weaknesses, and areas where improvement is possible to set realistic goals in learning, improve their educational performances and track their progress.[257][258] One of the unique tools for self-assessment made possible by education technology is Analytics. Analytics is data gathered on the student's activities on the learning platform, drawn into meaningful patterns that lead to a valid conclusion, usually through the medium of data visualization such as graphs. Learning analytics is the field that focuses on analyzing and reporting data about students' activities in order to facilitate learning.

Expenditure

The five key sectors of the e-learning industry are consulting, content, technologies, services, and support.[259] Worldwide, e-learning was estimated in 2000 to be over $48 billion according to conservative estimates.[260] Commercial growth has been brisk.[261][262] In 2014, the worldwide commercial market activity was estimated at $6 billion venture capital over the past five years,[261]: 38  with self-paced learning generating $35.6 billion in 2011.[261]: 4  North American e-learning generated $23.3 billion in revenue in 2013, with a 9% growth rate in cloud-based authoring tools and learning platforms.[261]: 19 

Careers

Main article: Educational psychologist

Educational technologists and psychologists apply basic educational and psychological research into an evidence-based applied science (or a technology) of learning or instruction. In research, these professions typically require a graduate degree (Master's, Doctorate, PhD, or D.Phil.) in a field related to educational psychology, educational media, experimental psychology, cognitive psychology, or, more purely, in the fields of educational, instructional or human performance technology or instructional design. In industry, educational technology is utilized to train students and employees by a wide range of learning and communication practitioners, including instructional designers, technical trainers, technical communication, and professional communication specialists, technical writers, and of course primary school and college teachers of all levels. The transformation of educational technology from a cottage industry to a profession is discussed by Shurville et al.[263]

See also

• ADDIE Model – Instructional systems design framework
• Assistive technology – Assistive devices for people with disabilities
• Brightstorm – online learning platform for teenagersPages displaying wikidata descriptions as a fallback
• ChatGPT in education – Use of ChatGPT in education
• Computers in the classroom – The use of computers in school
• Distance education – Mode of delivering education to students who are not physically present
• E-learning (theory) – Cognitive science principles of effective multimedia learning
• Educational animation – Animations produced for the specific purpose of fostering learning
• Educational technology in sub-Saharan Africa
• Evidence-based education – Paradigm of the education field
• Intelligent tutoring system – Computer system to provide instruction to learners
• Mobile learning for refugees – Distance education using mobile device technologyPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets
• Mobile phone use in schools
• Online credentials for learning
• Qualifications framework § Qualifications frameworks for online learning
• Remote laboratory – Arrangement for conducting experiments at one location while situated at another
• Virtual world language learning – conference about language education in Virtual WorldsPages displaying wikidata descriptions as a fallback
• Web-based simulation
• Digital media in education – Overview of ICT in education

References

1. Robinson, Rhonda; Molenda, Michael; Rezabek, Landra. "Facilitating Learning" (PDF). Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 September 2015. Retrieved 18 March 2016.
2. Mastellos, Nikolaos; Tran, Tammy; Dharmayat, Kanika; Cecil, Elizabeth; Lee, Hsin-Yi; Wong, Cybele C. Peng; Mkandawire, Winnie; Ngalande, Emmanuel; Wu, Joseph Tsung-Shu; Hardy, Victoria; Chirambo, Baxter Griphin (2 April 2018). "Training community healthcare workers on the use of information and communication technologies: a randomised controlled trial of traditional versus blended learning in Malawi, Africa". BMC Medical Education. 18 (1): 61. doi:10.1186/s12909-018-1175-5. ISSN 1472-6920. PMC 5879741. PMID 29609596.
3. Tanner Mirrlees; Shahid Alvi (22 October 2019). EdTech Inc.: Selling, Automating and Globalizing Higher Education in the Digital Age. New York: Routledge. p. 60. doi:10.4324/9780429343940. ISBN 978-0-429-34394-0. S2CID 211780225.
4. Woo, Stu (30 January 2017). "What's Better in the Classroom—Teacher or Machine?". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 12 November 2020. Retrieved 26 December 2020.
5. "To win post-pandemic, edtech needs to start thinking big". TechCrunch. 22 December 2020. Archived from the original on 27 December 2020. Retrieved 26 December 2020.
6. Committee for Draft National Education Policy (2018). Draft National Education Policy 2019 (PDF) (Report). Government of India.
7. Richey, R.C. (2008). "Reflections on the 2008 AECT Definitions of the Field". TechTrends. 52 (1). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 24–25. doi:10.1007/s11528-008-0108-2. ISSN 8756-3894. S2CID 189912472.
8. D. Randy Garrison; Terry Anderson; Definitions and Terminology Committee (2003). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-26346-7. Archived from the original on 14 August 2021.
9. Al Januszewski A.; Molenda Michael. (2007) Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary ISBN 978-0-8058-5861-7
10. Lowenthal, P. R.; Wilson, B. G. (2010). "Labels do matter! A critique of AECT's redefinition of the field". TechTrends. 54 (1): 38–46. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.408.648. doi:10.1007/s11528-009-0362-y. S2CID 143977728.
11. Report by Tech.Ed.Gov (2017). NETP17.
12. Herold, Benjamin (5 February 2016). "Technology in Education: An Overview". Education Week. Archived from the original on 1 November 2016. Retrieved 31 October 2016.
13. Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: AECT.
14. Geng, F. (2014). "Confusing terminologies: #e-learning, learning technologist, educational technologist,...discussed by @A_L_T members". Oxford, UK. Archived from the original on 5 August 2018.
15. Selwyn, N. (2011), Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates, London: Continuum International Publishing Group
16. Day, R; Payne, L (1987). "Computer-managed instruction: an alternative teaching strategy". Journal of Nursing Education. 26 (1): 30–6. doi:10.3928/0148-4834-19870101-08. ISSN 0148-4834. PMID 3029349.
17. "What is Digital Education?". Institute for Academic Development. University of Edinburgh. 2024. Retrieved 22 June 2024.
18. Moore, J. L.; Dickson-Deane, C.; Galyen, K. (2011). "E-Learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same?". The Internet and Higher Education. 14 (2): 129–135. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001. S2CID 17622901.
19. Singh, V; Thurman, A (2019). "How Many Ways Can We Define Online Learning? A Systematic Literature Review of Definitions of Online Learning (1988-2018)". American Journal of Distance Education. 33 (4): 289–306. doi:10.1080/08923647.2019.1663082.
20. "Universities Use Second Life to Teach Complex Concepts". Government Technology. 27 July 2010. Archived from the original on 4 October 2013. Retrieved 3 October 2013.
21. "DoD gives PTSD help 'second life' in virtual reality | Article | The United States Army". Army.mil. Archived from the original on 23 October 2013. Retrieved 22 October 2013.
22. Malegam, F (13 December 2022). "How to Empower eLearning with Virtual Classrooms in WordPress?". Adobe.
23. J. Bransford; A. Brown; R. R. Cocking, eds. (2000). "Technology to support learning". How people learn: Brain, mind, experience. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. pp. 206–230.
24. Alsheail, Abdulrahman (2010). Teaching English as a Second/Foreign Language in a Ubiquitous Learning Environment: A Guide for ESL/EFL Instructors (PDF). (Master's Project). Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 February 2014. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
25. Hwang, G. J. (2014). Definition, framework, and research issues of smart learning environments-a context-aware ubiquitous learning perspective. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 1-14.
26. Kinshuk; Chen, Nian-Shing; Cheng, I-Ling; Chew, Sie Wai (17 February 2016). "Evolution Is not enough: Revolutionizing Current Learning Environments to Smart Learning Environments". International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 26 (2): 561–581. doi:10.1007/s40593-016-0108-x. S2CID 11084070.
27. Spector, Jonathan Michael (16 October 2014). "Conceptualizing the emerging field of smart learning environments". Smart Learning Environments. 1 (1). doi:10.1186/s40561-014-0002-7. S2CID 3745158.
28. Andone, Diana; Holotescu, Carmen; Grosseck, Gabriela (26 November 2014). 2014 International Conference on Web and Open Access to Learning (ICWOAL). pp. 1–4. doi:10.1109/ICWOAL.2014.7009244. ISBN 978-1-4799-5739-2. S2CID 15404201.
29. Lombardi, Patrizia; Giordano, Silvia; Farouh, Hend; Yousef, Wael (June 2012). "Modelling the smart city performance". Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research. 25 (2): 137–149. doi:10.1080/13511610.2012.660325. S2CID 155017799.
30. Molenda, M. (2008). "Historical foundations". In M. J. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Merrienboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (Third., pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
31. Nye, D. (2007). Technology Matters: Questions to Live With. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
32. Biruni, Muhammad ibn Ahmad; Sachau, Eduard (1910). Alberuni's India. An account of the religion, philosophy, literature, geography, chronology, astronomy, customs, laws, and astrology of India about A.D. 1030. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co.
33. Saettler, P. (1990). The Evolution of American Educational Technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
34. Suppes, P.; Jerman, M.; Groen, G. (1966). "Arithmetic drills and review on a computer-based teletype" (PDF). The Arithmetic Teacher. 13 (4): 303–309. doi:10.5951/AT.13.4.0303. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 March 2016. Retrieved 4 September 2015.
35. Suppes, P. (19 May 1971). Computer Assisted Instruction at Stanford (PDF) (Report). Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 July 2010. Retrieved 4 September 2015.
36. See Rowan, Roy (1983). Executive Ed. at Computer U. Fortune, 7 March 1983; Feenberg, Andrew (1993). "Building a Global Network: The WBSI Experience", in L. Harasim, ed., Global Networks: Computerizing the International Community, MIT Press, pp. 185-197.
37. Withrow, Frank (1 June 1997). "Technology in Education and the Next Twenty-Five Years". T.H.E. Journal.
38. Ray Percival (28 November 1995). "Carry on learning". New Scientist.
39. Gail S. Thomas (1 February 1988). "Connected Education, Inc". Netweaver. Electronic Networking Association. Archived from the original on 27 August 2008. Retrieved 25 August 2008.
40. "Promises and pitfalls of online education". 9 June 2017. Archived from the original on 20 June 2018. Retrieved 19 March 2018.
41. Hickey, Ryan (12 May 2014). "The history of online education". Peterson's. Archived from the original on 19 March 2018. Retrieved 19 March 2018.
42. Hiltz, S. (1990). "Evaluating the Virtual Classroom". In Harasim, L. (ed.) Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment. New York: Praeger, pp. 133–169.
43. Mason. R. and Kaye, A. (1989). Mindweave: Communication, Computers and Distance Education. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
44. Avis, Peter (9 October 2014). "1973-1977 The National Development Programme NDPCAL". Educational Technology. Archived from the original on 6 January 2017. Retrieved 7 November 2014.
45. Crow, W. B. & Din, H. (2009). Unbound By Place or Time: Museums and Online Learning. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums, 9–10.
46. Bates, A. (2005). Technology, e-Learning and Distance Education. London: Routledge.
47. Johnson, Henry M (2007). "Dialogue and the construction of knowledge in e-learning: Exploring students' perceptions of their learning while using Blackboard's asynchronous discussion board". European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. 10 (1). Archived from the original on 16 November 2012. Retrieved 22 October 2013.
48. Harasim, L., Hiltz, S., Teles, L. and Turoff, M. (1995). Learning Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49. Graziadei, W. D., et al., 1997. Building Asynchronous and Synchronous Teaching-Learning Environments: Exploring a Course/Classroom Management System Solution Archived 13 June 2010 at the Wayback Machine.
50. "National Center for Education Statistics" (PDF).
51. "Recommendation 1836 (2008)". Realising the full potential of e-learning for education and training. Council of Europe. Archived from the original on 22 March 2013. Retrieved 7 May 2013.
52. Craft, Anna (July 2012). "Childhood in a digital age: creative challenges for educational futures" (PDF). London Review of Education. 10 (2): 173–190. doi:10.1080/14748460.2012.691282. S2CID 143731693. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 December 2018. Retrieved 2 January 2019.
53. "Technology in Schools: Weighing The Pros And Cons". Huffington Post. 25 May 2011. Archived from the original on 23 April 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
54. "Study: Online Course Enrollment Rising Rapidly at Private Nonprofits". U.S. News. 3 May 2017. Archived from the original on 24 October 2017. Retrieved 3 May 2017.
55. "As Schools Close Over Coronavirus, Protect Kids' Privacy in Online Learning". Human Rights Watch. 27 March 2020. Archived from the original on 10 April 2020. Retrieved 17 April 2020.
56. Sean, Allan (25 September 2020). "How Covid-19 brought the University of Toronto Class of '24 Together Online". Brooke Godfrey. Archived from the original on 9 August 2021. Retrieved 9 August 2021.
57. Unesco (5 March 2020). "Distance learning solutions". Archived from the original on 31 March 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
58. Kaplan, Andreas (6 April 2021). Higher Education at the Crossroads of Disruption: the University of the 21st Century. Emerald Publishing Limited. ISBN 978-1-80071-504-2. Archived from the original on 29 January 2021. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
59. "13 investors say lifelong learning is taking edtech mainstream". TechCrunch. 28 January 2021. Archived from the original on 28 January 2021. Retrieved 1 February 2021.
60. Green, Thomas (1971). The activities of teaching. McGraw Hill.
61. Skinner, B.F. (1954). "The science of learning and the art of teaching". Harvard Educational Review. 24: 86–97.
62. Skinner, B.F. (1958). "Teaching machines". Science. 128 (3330): 969–77. Bibcode:1958Sci...128..969S. doi:10.1126/science.128.3330.969. PMID 13592277. and others see "Dr. Burrhus Frederic Skinner: A Bibliography" (PDF). bfskinner.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2008.
63. Skinner BF (1965). "The technology of teaching". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 162 (989): 427–43. Bibcode:1965RSPSB.162..427S. doi:10.1098/rspb.1965.0048. PMID 4378497. S2CID 144957844.
64. Skinner, B.F. (1968). "The technology of teaching". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 162 (989). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts: 427–43. Bibcode:1965RSPSB.162..427S. doi:10.1098/rspb.1965.0048. PMID 4378497. S2CID 144957844. Library of Congress Card Number 68-12340 E 81290.
65. Irby, Beverly; Brown, Genevieve; Lara-Alecio, Rafael; Jackson, Shirley (2013). Handbook of Educational Theories. Charlotte, NC: IAP. p. 105. ISBN 978-1-61735-866-1.
66. Hergenhahn, B.R. (2008). An Introduction to the History of Psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. p. 627. ISBN 978-0-495-50621-8.
67. deJong, T. (2010). "Cognitive Load Theory, Educational Research, and Instructional Design: Some Food for Thought". Instructional Science: 38.
68. Utley, Rose (2010). Theory and Research for Academic Nurse Educators: Application to Practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning LLC. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-7637-7413-4.
69. Termos, Mohamad (2012). "Does the Classroom Performance System (CPS) Increase Students' Chances for Getting a Good Grade in College Core Courses and Increase Retention?". International Journal of Technologies in Learning. 19 (1): 45–56. doi:10.18848/2327-0144/cgp/v19i01/49144.
70. Rosenberg, Richard (2004). The Social Impact of Computers. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-597121-8.
71. Cassidy, Margaret (2004). Book Ends: The Changing Media Environment of American Classrooms. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc. p. 223. ISBN 978-1-57273-492-0.
72. Cassidy, Margaret (2004). Book Ends: The Changing Media Environment of American Classrooms. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc. p. 224. ISBN 978-1-57273-492-0.
73. Rosenberg, Richard (2004). The Social Impact of Computers. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press. p. 219. ISBN 978-0-12-597121-8.
74. Bates, A. and Poole, G. Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley, 2003
75. OECD (2005) E-Learning in Tertiary Education: Where Do We Stand? Paris: OECD
76. Baker, Celia (4 January 2013). "Blended learning: Teachers plus computers equal success". Desert News. Archived from the original on 23 October 2013. Retrieved 30 January 2014.
77. Strauss, Valerie (22 September 2012). "Three fears about blended learning". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 16 July 2017. Retrieved 26 August 2017.
78. Kaplan, Andreas (2017). Rishi, Bikramjit; Bandyopadhyay, Subir (eds.). "Academia Goes Social Media, MOOC, SPOC, SMOC, and SSOC: The digital transformation of Higher Education Institutions and Universities". Contemporary Issues in Social Media Marketing. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315563312-2 (inactive 16 December 2024).
79. Al-Asfour, A (2012). "Online Teaching: Navigating Its Advantages, Disadvantages and Best Practices". Tribal College Journal of American Indian Higher Education. 23: 3.
80. Loutchko, Iouri; Kurbel, Karl; Pakhomov, Alexei: Production and Delivery of Multimedia Courses for Internet Based Virtual Education; The World Congress "Networked Learning in a Global Environment: Challenges and Solutions for Virtual Education", Berlin, Germany, 1–4 May 2002
81. "Podcasts in Education: What, Why and How?" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 September 2013. Retrieved 8 December 2012.
82. "Asynchronous Learning: Definition, Benefits, and Example Activities". Archived from the original on 25 October 2019. Retrieved 10 February 2020.
83. "Collaborative asynchronous online learning". US Patent Office. 10 March 2014. Archived from the original on 8 June 2021. Retrieved 23 March 2019. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
84. Trentin G. (2010). Networked Collaborative Learning: Social Interaction and Active Learning Archived 17 September 2018 at the Wayback Machine, Woodhead/Chandos Publishing Limited, Cambridge, UK, ISBN 978-1-84334-501-5.^[page needed]
85. Crane B. "Using Web 2.0 Tools in the K-12 Classroom". Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., 2009
86. Sendall, P; Ceccucci, W.; Peslak, A. (December 2008). "Web 2.0 Matters: An Analysis of Implementing Web 2.0 in the Classroom". Information Systems Education Journal. 6 (64). Archived from the original on 29 November 2014. Retrieved 20 November 2014.
87. Redecker, Christine (2009). "Review of Learning 2.0 Practices: Study on the Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe". JRC Scientific and Technical Reports (EUR 23664 EN – 2009). Archived from the original on 7 December 2016. Retrieved 20 November 2014.
88. Seely Brown, John; Adler, Richard P. (2008). "Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0" (PDF). Educause Review (January/February 2008): 16–32. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 July 2014. Retrieved 20 November 2014.
89. "UCI's iMedEd Initiative named a 2012-13 Apple Distinguished Program". news.uci.edu. 11 February 2013. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 11 November 2015.
90. "Escuela 2.0". Ite.educacion.es. Archived from the original on 23 October 2013. Retrieved 22 October 2013.
91. "Scuola Digitale " Cl@ssi 2.0". Scuola-digitale.it. Archived from the original on 23 October 2013. Retrieved 22 October 2013.
92. Lee, Yuan-Hsuan (October 2015). "Facilitating critical thinking using the C-QRAC collaboration script: Enhancing science reading literacy in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment". Computers & Education. 88: 182–191. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.05.004.
93. "What is collaborative learning?". spiral.ac. Archived from the original on 3 August 2016. Retrieved 5 June 2016.
94. Friess, Erin; Lam, Chris (October 2018). "Cultivating a Sense of Belonging: Using Twitter to Establish a Community in an Introductory Technical Communication Classroom". Technical Communication Quarterly. 27 (4): 343–361. doi:10.1080/10572252.2018.1520435. S2CID 149660410.
95. Verzosa Hurley, Elise; Kimme Hea, Amy C. (January 2014). "The Rhetoric of Reach: Preparing Students for Technical Communication in the Age of Social Media". Technical Communication Quarterly. 23 (1): 55–68. doi:10.1080/10572252.2014.850854. ISSN 1057-2252. S2CID 219639973.
96. Kimme Hea, Amy C. (January 2014). "Social Media in Technical Communication". Technical Communication Quarterly. 23 (1): 1–5. doi:10.1080/10572252.2014.850841. ISSN 1057-2252. S2CID 219641115.
97. Bowdon, Melody A. (1 January 2014). "Tweeting an Ethos: Emergency Messaging, Social Media, and Teaching Technical Communication". Technical Communication Quarterly. 23 (1): 35–54. doi:10.1080/10572252.2014.850853. ISSN 1057-2252. S2CID 145413489.
98. Vie, Stephanie (3 July 2017). "Training Online Technical Communication Educators to Teach with Social Media: Best Practices and Professional Recommendations". Technical Communication Quarterly. 26 (3): 344–359. doi:10.1080/10572252.2017.1339487. ISSN 1057-2252. S2CID 66942296.
99. Sheeraz Ahmad Sheergugri; Nazeer Ahmad Khan; Nisar Ahmad Kumar (30 April 2023). "Understand Flipped Learning as an Effective Tool for Enhancing Thinking and Learning". International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology: 746–749. doi:10.48175/ijarsct-10419g. ISSN 2581-9429.
100. Pozo-Sánchez, Santiago; Segura-Robles, Adrián; Moreno-Guerrero, Antonio José; López-Belmonte, Jesús (2 December 2022). "Benefits of Using the Learning Management System based on Flipped Learning Methodology". Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa. 24: 1–14. doi:10.24320/redie.2022.24.e24.4094. hdl:10481/82873. ISSN 1607-4041.
101. Hall, Ashley A.; DuFrene, Debbie D. (June 2016). "Best Practices for Launching a Flipped Classroom". Business and Professional Communication Quarterly. 79 (2): 234–242. doi:10.1177/2329490615606733. ISSN 2329-4906. S2CID 61904212.
102. Ryan, Michael D.; Reid, Scott A. (12 January 2016). "Impact of the Flipped Classroom on Student Performance and Retention: A Parallel Controlled Study in General Chemistry". Journal of Chemical Education. 93 (1): 13–23. Bibcode:2016JChEd..93...13R. doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00717. ISSN 0021-9584.
103. Khanova, Julia; Roth, Mary T; Rodgers, Jo Ellen; McLaughlin, Jacqueline E (2015). "Student experiences across multiple flipped courses in a single curriculum". Medical Education. 49 (10): 1038–1048. doi:10.1111/medu.12807. PMID 26383075.
104. Chen, Li-Ling (2016). "Impacts of Flipped Classroom in High School Health Education". Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 44 (4): 411–420. doi:10.1177/0047239515626371. ISSN 0047-2395.
105. Moraros, John; Islam, Adiba; Yu, Stan; Banow, Ryan; Schindelka, Barbara (28 February 2015). "Flipping for success: evaluating the effectiveness of a novel teaching approach in a graduate level setting". BMC Medical Education. 15 (1): 27. doi:10.1186/s12909-015-0317-2. ISSN 1472-6920. PMC 4363198. PMID 25884508.
106. Wanner, Thomas; Palmer, Edward (2015). "Personalising learning: Exploring student and teacher perceptions about flexible learning and assessment in a flipped university course". Computers & Education. 88: 354–369. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.008. ISSN 0360-1315.
107. Akçayır, Gökçe; Akçayır, Murat (November 2018). "The flipped classroom: A review of its advantages and challenges". Computers & Education. 126: 334–345. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.021. ISSN 0360-1315.
108. Forehand, M. (2010). "Bloom's Taxonomy. From Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology". Archived from the original on 5 July 2008. Retrieved 25 October 2012.
109. Reeves, Thomas C. (12 February 1998). The Impact of Media and Technology in Schools (PDF) (Report). University of Georgia. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 October 2013. Retrieved 9 October 2013.
110. Menkhoff, Thomas; Thang, Tze Yian; Wong, Yue Kee (September 2007). Evaluating the Blending of an E-Learning Module into a Knowledge Management Course: A Case Study from the Singapore Management University (SMU). Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference e-Learning 2007, Lisbon, 6–8 July 2007 – via Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School Of Business.
111. Cuesta-Cambra, Ubaldo; Niño-González, José-Ignacio; Rodríguez-Terceño, José (1 July 2017). "The Cognitive Processing of an Educational App with EEG and 'Eye Tracking'". Comunicar. 25 (52): 41–50. doi:10.3916/c52-2017-04. hdl:10272/14086.
112. Dieker, Lisa A.; Lane, Holly B.; Allsopp, David H.; O'Brien, Chris; Butler, Tyran Wright; Kyger, Maggie; Lovin, LouAnn; Fenty, Nicole S. (7 April 2009). "Evaluating Video Models of Evidence-Based Instructional Practices to Enhance Teacher Learning". Teacher Education and Special Education. 32 (2): 180–196. doi:10.1177/0888406409334202. S2CID 143967113.
113. Biocchi, Michael. "Games in the Classroom". Gaming in the Classroom. Archived from the original on 15 August 2011. Retrieved 24 March 2011.
114. "Screencasting | Teaching and Learning Innovation Park". Ipark.hud.ac.uk. Archived from the original on 23 October 2013. Retrieved 22 October 2013.
115. Shiao, Dennis. "Why Virtual Classrooms Are Excellent Learning Venues". INXPO. Archived from the original on 5 November 2013. Retrieved 18 May 2013.
116. Kolpashnikova, Kamila; Bartolic, Silvia (2019). "Digital divide in quantitative methods: The effects of computer-assisted instruction and students' attitudes on knowledge acquisition". Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 35 (2): 208–217. doi:10.1111/jcal.12322. S2CID 69552601.
117. Tremblay, Eric (2010). "Educating the Mobile Generation – using personal cell phones as audience response systems in post-secondary science teaching". Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching. 29 (2): 217–227. Archived from the original on 31 October 2010. Retrieved 5 November 2010.
118. Terras, Melody M.; Ramsay, Judith (September 2012). "The five central psychological challenges facing effective mobile learning". British Journal of Educational Technology. 43 (5): 820–832. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01362.x. Archived from the original on 2 June 2020. Retrieved 30 March 2020.
119. Kester, Liesbeth; Kirschner, Paul; Corbalan, Gemma (May 2007). "Designing support to facilitate learning in powerful electronic learning environments". Computers in Human Behavior. 23 (3): 1047–1054. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.564.4050. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.001.
120. Campaña, Laura V.; Ouimet, Donald A. (January–February 2015). "iStimulation: Apple iPad Use with Ch". Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness. 109 (1): 67–72. doi:10.1177/0145482X1510900110. S2CID 52225700.
121. "Use of digital technology in education: Literature review" (PDF). South Australian Department for Education. 2021. Retrieved 25 September 2023.
122. Komal, Saxena; Abdul, Basit; Shukla, Vinod Kumar (27 December 2021). "Green Internet of Things (G-IoT) Technologies, Application, and Future Challenges". Green Internet of Things and Machine Learning. pp. 317–348. doi:10.1002/9781119793144.ch12. ISBN 9781119792031.
123. Jamieson, Peter; Herdtner, Jeff (October 2015). More missing the Boat — Arduino, Raspberry Pi, and small prototyping boards and engineering education needs them (Research Paper) (Report). Reserchgate.
124. Courts, B. & Tucker, J. (2012). "Using Technology To Create A Dynamic Classroom Experience". Journal of College Teaching & Learning. 9 (2), 121-128.
125. "Can Tweeting Help Your Teaching?". NEA. Archived from the original on 1 December 2009. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
126. Murray, Kristine; Rhonda Waller (May–June 2007). "Social Networking Goes Abroad" (PDF). Education Abroad. 16 (3): 56–59. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 October 2013. Retrieved 27 July 2013.
127. Beagle, Martha; Hudges, Don. "Social Networking in Education". pelinks4u.org. Archived from the original on 5 October 2013. Retrieved 27 July 2013.
128. Pilgrim, Jodi; Christie Bledsoe (1 September 2011). "Learning Through Facebook: A Potential Tool for Educators". Delta Kappa Gamma.
129. Carpenter S. Definition: Whiteboard Archived 27 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine. TechTarget.
130. Mutsvairo, Bruce, ed. (2016). Digital Activism in the Social Media Era. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40949-8. ISBN 978-3-319-40948-1.
131. Farwell (2013). "Keeping an Online Class Interesting and Interactive". Distance Learning. 10 (3): 27–32.
132. "A real-time interactive virtual classroom multimedia distance learning system".
133. McKinney, M. D. (1 September 1985). "Legislative Strategies Used by United School Administrators". Educational Considerations. 12 (2). doi:10.4148/0146-9282.1727. ISSN 0146-9282.
134. "RKDF UNIVERSITY | EDUCATION GLORIFIES NATION". rkdf.ac.in. Retrieved 25 May 2024.
135. "Student Services for Online Learners - OnlineEducation.com". www.onlineeducation.com. Retrieved 25 May 2024.
136. Vegas, Emiliana (14 April 2020). "School Closures, Government Responses, and Learning Inequality Around the World during COVID-19". Brookings. Archived from the original on 25 January 2021. Retrieved 14 February 2021.
137. Sharples, Mike (November 2013). "Shared orchestration within and beyond the classroom" (PDF). Computers & Education. 69: 504–506. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.014. ISSN 0360-1315. S2CID 12469826. Archived (PDF) from the original on 31 July 2020. Retrieved 20 December 2019.
138. Sarasota, Darya; Ali Khalid; Sören Auer; Jörg Unbehauen (2013). "Crowd Learn: Crowdsourcing the Creation of Highly-structured E-Learning Content". 5th International Conference on Computer Supported Education CSEDU 2013. Archived from the original on 20 November 2019. Retrieved 12 July 2014.
139. "Blackboard International | EMEA". Blackboard.com. Archived from the original on 27 March 2009. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
140. "open-source community-based tools for learning". Moodle.org. Archived from the original on 25 October 2012. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
141. Auer, Sören. "First Public Beta of SlideWiki.org". Archived from the original on 20 February 2013. Retrieved 22 February 2013.
142. "Teachers Manual on Formative Assessment" (PDF).
143. "Technology-enabled learning: More than e-Learning - Part 1: What does technology-enabled training management look like?". Training Development Excellence Essentials. Archived from the original on 16 March 2018. Retrieved 7 July 2017.
144. "Instructor-Led Training and e-Learning: which technology for which learning delivery?". Training Development Excellence Essentials. Archived from the original on 16 March 2018. Retrieved 7 July 2017.
145. Clark, R. C., Mayer, R. E. (2007). eLearning and the Science of Instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. ISBN 978-0-7879-8683-4
146. Doroudi, Shayan (December 2023). "The Intertwined Histories of Artificial Intelligence and Education". International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 33 (4): 885–928. doi:10.1007/s40593-022-00313-2. ISSN 1560-4292.
147. Kamalov, Firuz; Santandreu Calonge, David; Gurrib, Ikhlaas (16 August 2023). "New Era of Artificial Intelligence in Education: Towards a Sustainable Multifaceted Revolution". Sustainability. 15 (16): 12451. arXiv:2305.18303. doi:10.3390/su151612451. eISSN 2071-1050.
148. Chi, Michelene T.H.; Siler, Stephanie A.; Jeong, Heisawn; Yamauchi, Takashi; Hausmann, Robert G. (July 2001). "Learning from human tutoring". Cognitive Science. 25 (4): 471–533. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2504_1. ISSN 0364-0213.
149. Bloom, Benjamin S. (June 1984). "The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring". Educational Researcher. 13 (6): 4–16. doi:10.3102/0013189x013006004. ISSN 0013-189X. S2CID 1714225.
150. Corbett, Albert T.; Anderson, John R. (1995). "Knowledge tracing: Modeling the acquisition of procedural knowledge". User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction. 4 (4): 253–278. doi:10.1007/bf01099821. ISSN 0924-1868. S2CID 19228797.
151. Pardos, Zachary A.; Baker, Ryan S. J. D.; San Pedro, Maria O. C. Z.; Gowda, Sujith M.; Gowda, Supreeth M. (2013). "Affective states and state tests". Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. p. 117. doi:10.1145/2460296.2460320. ISBN 978-1-4503-1785-6. S2CID 9225441.
152. Baker, Ryan S.J.d. (2007). "Modeling and understanding students' off-task behavior in intelligent tutoring systems". Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. pp. 1059–1068. doi:10.1145/1240624.1240785. ISBN 978-1-59593-593-9. S2CID 13544854.
153. Beck, Joseph E.; Gong, Yue (2013), "Wheel-Spinning: Students Who Fail to Master a Skill", Artificial Intelligence in Education, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7926, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 431–440, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39112-5_44, ISBN 978-3-642-39111-8, S2CID 6105732
154. du Boulay, Benedict (6 August 2015). "Recent Meta-reviews and Meta-analyses of AIED Systems". International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 26 (1): 536–537. doi:10.1007/s40593-015-0060-1. ISSN 1560-4292. S2CID 1727756.
155. "The Zone of Proximal Development and Adaptive Learning Systems". www.wiley.com. Archived from the original on 14 August 2021. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
156. Hsu, Yu-Chang; Ching, Yu-Hui (7 June 2023). "Generative Artificial Intelligence in Education, Part One: the Dynamic Frontier". TechTrends. 67 (4): 603–607. doi:10.1007/s11528-023-00863-9. ISSN 8756-3894.
157. Huang, Kalley (16 January 2023). "Alarmed by A.I. Chatbots, Universities Start Revamping How They Teach". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 17 March 2024.
158. Johnson, Arianna. "ChatGPT In Schools: Here's Where It's Banned—And How It Could Potentially Help Students". Forbes. Retrieved 17 March 2024.
159. Meckler, Laura; Verma, Pranshu (29 December 2022). "Teachers are on alert for inevitable cheating after release of ChatGPT". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 17 March 2024.
160. "ChatGPT is going to change education, not destroy it". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 17 March 2024.
161. Varanasi, Lakshmi. "New York City's public schools reverse their ban on ChatGPT — admitting it had been 'knee-jerk fear'". Business Insider. Retrieved 17 March 2024.
162. Verma, Vivek; Fleisig, Eve; Tomlin, Nicholas; Klein, Dan (13 November 2023), Ghostbuster: Detecting Text Ghostwritten by Large Language Models, arXiv:2305.15047
163. Clark, Elijah. "The 10 Best AI Content Detector Tools". Forbes. Retrieved 17 March 2024.
164. Su, Jiahong; Guo, Kai; Chen, Xinyu; Chu, Samuel Kai Wah (24 May 2023). "Teaching artificial intelligence in K–12 classrooms: a scoping review". Interactive Learning Environments. 32 (9): 5207–5226. doi:10.1080/10494820.2023.2212706. ISSN 1049-4820.
165. Foltynek, Tomas; Bjelobaba, Sonja; Glendinning, Irene; Khan, Zeenath Reza; Santos, Rita; Pavletic, Pegi; Kravjar, Július (1 May 2023). "ENAI Recommendations on the ethical use of Artificial Intelligence in Education". International Journal for Educational Integrity. 19 (1). doi:10.1007/s40979-023-00133-4. ISSN 1833-2595.
166. Yu, Liheng; Yu, Zhonggen (9 March 2023). "Qualitative and quantitative analyses of artificial intelligence ethics in education using VOSviewer and CitNetExplorer". Frontiers in Psychology. 14. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1061778. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 10035335. PMID 36968737.
167. Rideout, V.; Vanderwater, E.; Wartella, E. (2003). Zero to six: Electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers (Report). Menlo Park, California: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Archived from the original on 24 December 2014. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
168. Buckleitner, Warren (12 June 2008). "So Young, and So Gadgeted". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 23 December 2016. Retrieved 21 February 2017.
169. Meidlinger, K. "Choosing Media for Children Checklist: Adapted from Dr. Faith Rogow" (PDF). Kids Watch Monthly. San Francisco: KQED. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 20 November 2014.
170. "Technology in the Preschool Classroom". study.com. Archived from the original on 6 November 2018. Retrieved 16 September 2021.
171. "Technology and Young Children: Preschoolers and Kindergartners". National Association for the Education of Young Children. Washington, DC.
172. "ECE Technology: 10 Trending Tools for Teachers". Early Childhood Teacher. 29 August 2013. Archived from the original on 6 November 2018. Retrieved 16 September 2021.
173. "Best Apps for Preschoolers". icanteachmychild.com. 4 September 2012. Archived from the original on 6 November 2018. Retrieved 16 September 2021.
174. "Guiding Principles for Use of Technology with Early Learners". Office of Educational Technology. Archived from the original on 6 November 2018. Retrieved 16 September 2021.
175. Slagg, Alexander. "Teaching the Principles of Computer Science Early in K–12 Schools". Technology Solutions That Drive Education. Retrieved 25 September 2023.
176. publications. "The Rise of Cyber-Schools". The New Atlantis. Archived from the original on 25 February 2013. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
177. "Research Center: Charter Schools". Edweek.org. Archived from the original on 29 January 2013. Retrieved 24 October 2012.
178. publications. "For Frustrated Gifted Kids, A World of Online Opportunities". KQED. Archived from the original on 24 May 2014. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
179. Cavanaugh, C (2009). "Effectiveness of cyber charter schools: A review of research on learnings". TechTrends. 53 (4): 28–31. doi:10.1007/s11528-009-0302-x. S2CID 150964098.
180. Benno, Mark (29 November 2016). "Virtual Reality". Gifted Child Today. 21 (1): 12–14. doi:10.1177/107621759802100104. S2CID 220121504.
181. Annetta, Leonard; Mangrum, Jennifer; Holmes, Shawn; Collazo, Kimberly; Cheng, Meng-Tzu (12 May 2009). "Bridging Realty to Virtual Reality: Investigating gender effect and student engagement on learning through video game play in an elementary school classroom". International Journal of Science Education. 31 (8): 1091–1113. Bibcode:2009IJSEd..31.1091A. doi:10.1080/09500690801968656. S2CID 143231315.
182. Heine, C.; Gerry, J.; Sutherland, L. S. (2015). "Chapter 14: Technology Education for High-Ability Students". In Dixon, F. A.; Moon, S. M. (eds.). The Handbook of Secondary Gifted Education. Waco, Texas: Prufrock Press, Inc. pp. 369–392. Archived from the original on 30 July 2020. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
183. Brochu, Michèle (2018). "Projet SEUR" (PDF). Rapport d'Activités: 37. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2 January 2019. Retrieved 2 January 2019.
184. "Ateliers de douance 9-12 ans du samedi". Collège Mont-Royal. Archived from the original on 2 January 2019. Retrieved 2 January 2019.
185. Major, Claire (2015). Teaching Online: A Guide to Theory, Research, and Practice. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
186. Jaggars, S. S.; Edgecombe, N.; Stacey, G. W. (2013). "What we know about online course outcomes (research overview)". Community College Research Center. Archived from the original on 4 April 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
187. Ambient Insight Research (2009). "US Self-paced e-Learning Market". Monroe WA: Ambient Insight Research. Archived from the original on 2 April 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
188. Repetto, M.; Trentin, G., eds. (2011). Faculty Training for Web-Enhanced Learning. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. ISBN 978-1-61209-335-2. Archived from the original on 14 August 2021. Retrieved 20 November 2014.
189. Hebert, D. G. (2007). "Five Challenges and Solutions in Online Music Teacher Education". Research and Issues in Music Education. 5 (1). Archived from the original on 31 August 2012. Retrieved 20 November 2014.
190. Youngberg, David (13 August 2012). "Why Online Education Won't Replace College--Yet". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on 29 November 2014. Retrieved 20 November 2014.
191. Pappano, Laura (2 November 2012). "The Year of the MOOC". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 27 March 2013. Retrieved 12 February 2013.
192. Kolowich, Steve (15 May 2014). "Conventional Online Higher Education Will Absorb MOOCs, 2 Reports Say". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on 17 September 2018. Retrieved 15 May 2014.
193. Fischer-Hübner, Simone; Martucci, Leonardo A.; Fritsch, Lothar; Pulls, Tobias; Herold, Sebastian; Iwaya, Leonardo H.; Alfredsson, Stefan; Zuccato, Albin (2018). "A MOOC on Privacy by Design and the GDPR" (PDF). In Drevin, Lynette; Theocharidou, Marianthi (eds.). Information Security Education – Towards a Cybersecure Society. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. Vol. 531. Springer International Publishing. pp. 95–107. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99734-6_8. ISBN 978-3-319-99734-6.
194. Anderson, Ashton; Huttenlocher, Daniel; Kleinberg, Jon; Leskovec, Jure (2014). "Engaging with massive online courses". Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web. New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. pp. 687–698. arXiv:1403.3100. Bibcode:2014arXiv1403.3100A. doi:10.1145/2566486.2568042. ISBN 978-1-4503-2744-2. S2CID 7007398.
195. Simoudis, Hector (8 December 2022). "How To Get Employees Engaged In Training And Why It's Important". eLearning Industry. Retrieved 25 September 2023.
196. Saba, Farhad (November–December 2011). "Distance Education in the United States: Past, Present, Future". Educational Technology. 51 (6): 11–18. ISSN 0013-1962. Archived from the original on 31 July 2020. Retrieved 29 May 2019.
197. "Skills Bootcamp". Skills for All. Department of Education. 2024. Retrieved 22 June 2024.
198. Ross, S.; Morrison, G.; Lowther, D. (2010). "Educational technology research past and present: balancing rigor and relevance to impact learning" (PDF). Contemporary Educational Technology. 1 (1): 17. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 October 2016. Retrieved 2 April 2016.
199. Hicks, S.D. (2011). "Technology in today's classroom: Are you a tech-savvy teacher?". The Clearing House. 84 (5): 188–191. doi:10.1080/00098655.2011.557406. S2CID 142593701.
200. Kronholz, J. (2011). "Getting at-risk teens to graduation". Education Next. Vol. 11, no. 4. ProQuest 1237831598.
201. Masson, M (December 2014). "Benefits of TED Talks". Canadian Family Physician. 60 (12): 1080. PMC 4264800. PMID 25500595.
202. "What higher education students want from online learning | McKinsey". www.mckinsey.com. Retrieved 25 September 2023.
203. Dalsgaard, Christian. "Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems". eurodl.org. University of Aarhus. Archived from the original on 20 May 2013. Retrieved 31 March 2013.
204. "Technology Uses in Education". Nsba.org. 9 December 2011. Archived from the original on 6 July 2013. Retrieved 22 March 2014.
205. "Technology Impact on Learning". Nsba.org. 9 December 2011. Archived from the original on 1 July 2013. Retrieved 22 March 2014.
206. Warschauer, M.; Matuchniak, T. (2010). "New technology and digital worlds: analyzing evidence of equity in access, use and outcomes". Review of Research in Education. 34 (1): 179–225. doi:10.3102/0091732X09349791. hdl:11059/15126. S2CID 145400905.
207. "CRTC issues annual report on the state of the Canadian communication system" (Press release). CRTC. 27 September 2013. Archived from the original on 27 February 2014.
208. Theen, Andrew (12 February 2012). "MIT Begins Offering Free Online Course With Certificate". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 25 December 2014.
209. Kemp, Nenagh; Grieve, Rachel (1 January 2014). "Face-to-face or face-to-screen? Undergraduates' opinions and test performance in classroom vs. online learning". Frontiers in Psychology. 5: 1278. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278. PMC 4228829. PMID 25429276.
210. Deschaine, Mark; Whale, David (2017). "Increasing Student Engagement in Online Educational Leadership Courses" (PDF). Journal of Educators Online: 6. Archived (PDF) from the original on 31 December 2018.
211. An, Y. J.; Reigeluth, C. (2011). "Creating Technology-Enhanced, Learner-Centered Classrooms: K–12 Teachers' Beliefs, Perceptions, Barriers, and Support Needs" (PDF). Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. 28 (2): 54–62. doi:10.1080/21532974.2011.10784681. ISSN 2153-2974. S2CID 10783064. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 July 2016.
212. "Hiring Practices and Attitudes: Traditional vs. Online Degree Credentials SHRM Poll". 19 August 2010. Archived from the original on 23 April 2016.
213. "Study: iPads improve Kindergarten literacy scores". Engadget. Archived from the original on 26 October 2015.
214. "Global E-Learning Market 2017 to Boom $275.10 Billion Value by 2022 at a CAGR of 7.5% – Orbis Research". Archived from the original on 27 May 2018.
215. Boser, U. (2013). "Are Schools Getting a Big Enough Bang for Their Education Technology Buck?" (PDF). American Progress. pp. 1–12. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 May 2014.
216. Culp, K.M.; Honey, M.; Mandinach, E. (2005). "A retrospective on twenty years of education technology policy". Journal of Educational Computing Research. 32 (3): 279–307. doi:10.2190/7W71-QVT2-PAP2-UDX7. S2CID 61281934.
217. Lai, K.W. (2008). "ICT Supporting the Learning Process: The Premise, Reality, and Promise". International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education. Springer US. pp. 215–230.
218. Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: the surrender of culture to technology. New York. New York, NY: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0-679-74540-2.
219. "Baby DVDs, Videos May Hinder, Not Help, Infants' Language Development". University of Washington Press. 7 August 2007. Archived from the original on 15 February 2015.
220. "Baby Einsteins: Not So Smart After All". Time. 6 August 2007. Archived from the original on 4 January 2015.
221. "TV for Babies: Does It Help or Hurt?". Time. 3 March 2009. Archived from the original on 4 January 2015.
222. Moret, B. (8 June 2012). "No television for babies: Why TV is bad for young children". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 4 January 2015.
223. Cuban, L. (1998). "High-Tech Schools and Low-Tech Teaching". Journal of Computing in Teacher Education. 14 (2): 6–7. doi:10.1080/10402454.1998.10784333. S2CID 109024575. Archived from the original on 30 July 2020.
224. Ho, A. D.; Reich, J.; Nesterko, S.; Seaton, D. T.; Mullaney, T.; Waldo, J.; Chuang, I. (2014), HarvardX and MITx: The first year of open online courses, HarvardX and MITx Working Paper No. 1, doi:10.2139/ssrn.2381263, hdl:1721.1/96649, S2CID 111039113, SSRN 2381263
225. D F O Onah; J E Sinclair; R Boyatt (2014). "Dropout Rates of Massive Open Online Courses: Behavioural Patterns". ResearchGate. doi:10.13140/rg.2.1.2402.0009.
226. Trucano, M. (11 December 2013). More about MOOCs and developing countries. EduTech: A World Bank Blog on ICT use in Education
227. Trenholm, Sven (21 July 2016). "A Review of Cheating in Fully Asynchronous Online Courses: A Math or Fact-Based Course Perspective". Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 35 (3): 281–300. doi:10.2190/Y78L-H21X-241N-7Q02. S2CID 62756308. Archived from the original on 14 August 2021.
228. Fawaz, Mirna; Samaha, Ali (January 2021). "E-learning: Depression, anxiety, and stress symptomatology among Lebanese university students during COVID-19 quarantine". Nursing Forum. 56 (1): 52–57. doi:10.1111/nuf.12521. ISSN 0029-6473. PMID 33125744. S2CID 226218330.
229. Ritchel, Matt (21 November 2010). "Growing up Digital, Wired for Distraction". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 13 November 2013.
230. Begley, Sharon. "The Science of Making Decisions" Archived 1 July 2014 at the Wayback Machine. Newsweek 27 February 2011. Web. 14 March 2011.
231. Small, G.; Vorgan, G. (2008). "Meet Your iBrain". Scientific American Mind. 5 (19): 42–49. doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind1008-42 (inactive 2 November 2024).
232. Cuban, Larry (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom (PDF). Harvard University Press. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 August 2017.
233. Winner, Langdon (1986). The Whale and the Reactor. The University of Chicago Press.
234. Marx, Leo (2010). "Technology: The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept". Technology and Culture. 51 (3): 561–577. doi:10.1353/tech.2010.0009. S2CID 92982580.
235. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children computers and powerful ideas (PDF). New York, NY: Basic Books. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 November 2015.
236. Willingham, Daniel (Summer 2010). "Have Technology and Multitasking Rewired How Students Learn?". American Educator (Summer 2010): 23–28.
237. Wei, L.; Hindman, D. (2011). "Does the Digital Divide Matter More? Comparing the Effects of New Media and Old Media Use on the Education-Based Knowledge Gap". Mass Communication and Society. 14 (1): 216–235. doi:10.1080/15205431003642707. S2CID 144745385.
238. Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
239. Frida Alim, Nate Cardozo, Gennie Gebhart, Karen Gullo, Amul Kalia, Spying on Students. School-issued devices and student privacy Archived 13 April 2017 at the Wayback Machine, 13 April 2017, Executive summary.
240. Education Technologies: Data Collection and Unsecured Systems Could Pose Risks to Students (Report). Federal Bureau of Investigation Internet Crime Complaint Center. 13 September 2018. Archived from the original on 2 June 2020.
241. Williamson, Ben; Bayne, Sian; Shay, Suellen (2020). "The datafication of teaching in Higher Education: Critical issues and perspectives". Teaching in Higher Education. 25 (4): 351–365. doi:10.1080/13562517.2020.1748811. hdl:20.500.11820/ea598f82-d14c-4456-816d-dab026b9f481. S2CID 219036372.
242. Williamson, Ben (2018). "The hidden architecture of higher education: Building a big data infrastructure for the 'smarter university'". International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 15. doi:10.1186/s41239-018-0094-1. hdl:20.500.11820/6b8ea96e-be1b-4d17-9cdc-a768615d1c69. S2CID 3759016.
243. Oliver, A.; Osa, J. O.; Walker, T. M. (2012). "Using instructional technologies to enhance teaching and learning for the 21st century pre K-12 students: The case of a professional education programs unit". International Journal of Instructional Media. 39 (4): 283–295.
244. Harris, J.; Mishra, P.; Koehler, M. (2009). "Teachers' Technological Pedagogical Integration Reframed" (PDF). Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 41 (4): 393–416. doi:10.1080/15391523.2009.10782536. S2CID 15789445. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 September 2016.
245. De Castell, S. (2011). "Ludic Epistemology: What Game-Based Learning Can Teach Curriculum Studies". Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies. 8 (2): 19–27. Archived from the original on 17 April 2016.
246. Robinson, T. (2006). Schools Kill Creativity. TED Talks.
247. Eisenberg, M (2008). "Information Literacy: Essential Skills for the Information Age". DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology. 28 (2): 39–47. doi:10.14429/djlit.28.2.166.
248. Fletcher, S (2013). "Machine Learning". Scientific American. 309 (2): 62–68. Bibcode:2013SciAm.309b..62F. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0813-62. PMID 23923208.
249. Beatty, Ian D; Gerace, William J (January 2009). "Technology-Enhanced Formative Assessment: A Research-Based Pedagogy for Teaching Science with Classroom Response Technology". Journal of Science and Technology. 18 (2): 146. Bibcode:2009JSEdT..18..146B. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9140-4. S2CID 40547715.
250. Fies, Carmen; Marshall, Jill (March 2006). "Classroom Response Systems: A Review of the Literature". Journal of Science Education and Technology. 15 (1): 101. Bibcode:2006JSEdT..15..101F. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1. S2CID 17608112.
251. Abrahamson, Louis (2007). "A Brief History of Networked Classrooms". In Tomei, Lawrence A. (ed.). Online and Distance Learning: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. IGI Global. pp. 78–100. ISBN 978-1-59904-936-6. At pp. 79–80, 85.
252. Littauer, Raphael (October 1972). "Instructional Implications of a Low-Cost Electronic Student Response System". Educational Technology. 12 (10): 69–71. JSTOR 44419363 – via JSTOR.
253. Intemann, Leslie (20 February 2006). "Clicking in class helps lecturers from appearing remote by using student remotes as instructional tool". Cornell Chronicle.
254. Marriott, Pru; Lau, Alice (2008). "The use of on-line summative assessment in an undergraduate financial accounting course". Journal of Accounting Education. 26 (2): 73–90. doi:10.1016/j.jaccedu.2008.02.001.
255. "An Introduction to E-marking" (PDF). SQA. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 March 2016.
256. "State government of India announces that it would be using e-marking for all streams from 2016". The Times of India. 2 June 2015. Archived from the original on 6 June 2015.
257. "What is Self Assessment?". nzqa. Archived from the original on 14 June 2016.
258. "Student Self-Assessment". unsw. Archived from the original on 13 August 2016.
259. Nagy, A. (2005). "The Impact of E-Learning". In Bruck, P.A.; Buchholz, A.; Karssen, Z.; Zerfass, A. (eds.). E-Content: Technologies and Perspectives for the European Market. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 79–96.
260. European Commission (2000). Communication from the Commission: E-Learning – Designing "Tejas at Niit" tomorrow's education. Brussels: European Commission
261. "E-Learning Market Trends & Forecast 2014 - 2016 Report" (PDF). www.docebo.com. Docebo. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 December 2016.
262. McCue, T. J. (27 August 2014). "Online Learning Industry Poised for $107 Billion in 2015". Forbes. Archived from the original on 25 August 2017.
263. Shurville, S.; Browne, T.; Whitaker, M. (2009). "Accommodating the newfound strategic importance of educational technologists within higher education: A critical literature review". Campus-Wide Information Systems. 26 (3): 201–231. doi:10.1108/10650740910967384. hdl:10036/78389. S2CID 17423235.

Further reading

• Betts, Kristen, et al. "Historical review of distance and online education from 1700s to 2021 in the United States: Instructional design and pivotal pedagogy in higher education." Journal of Online Learning Research and Practice 8.1 (2021) pp 3–55 online.

External links

• Media related to Educational technology at Wikimedia Commons
• "Schools of the Future: Learning On-Line" 1994 documentary from KETC