Technology integration

<h2 id="history">History</h2>
The term 'educational technology' was used during the post-World War II era in the United States to integrate implements such as film strips, slide projectors, language laboratories, audio tapes, and television.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:12" href="#fn:12">12</a> Presently, the computers, tablets, and mobile devices integrated into classroom settings for educational purposes are most often referred to as 'current' educational technologies. Educational technologies continually change, and once referred to slate chalkboards used by students in early schoolhouses in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The phrase 'educational technology', a composite meaning of technology + education, is used to refer to the most advanced technologies that are available for both teaching and learning in a particular era.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:13" href="#fn:13">13</a>
In 1994 federal legislation for both the Educate America Act and the Improving America's School's Act (IASA) authorized funds for state and federal educational technology planning.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:14" href="#fn:14">14</a> One of the principal goals listed in the Educate America Act is to promote the research, consensus building, and systemic changes needed to ensure equitable educational opportunities and high levels of educational achievement for all students (Public Law 103-227).<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:15" href="#fn:15">15</a> In 1996 the Telecommunications Act provided a systematic change necessary to ensure equitable educational opportunities of bringing new technology into the education sector.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:16" href="#fn:16">16</a> The Telecomm Act requires affordable access and service to advanced telecom services for public schools and libraries. Many of the computers, tablets, and mobile devices currently used in classrooms operate through Internet connectivity; particularly those that are application based such as tablets. Schools in high-cost areas and disadvantaged schools were to receive higher discounts in telecom services such as the Internet, cable, satellite television, and the management component.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:17" href="#fn:17">17</a>
A chart of "Technology Penetration in U.S. Public Schools" report states that 98% percent of schools reported having computers in the 1995–1996 school year, with 64% Internet access, and 38% working via networked systems.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:18" href="#fn:18">18</a> The ratio of students to computers in the United States in 1984 stood at 15 students per 1 computer, it now stands at an average all-time low of 10 students to computer.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:19" href="#fn:19">19</a> From the 1980s on into the 2000s, the most substantial issue to examine in educational technology was school access to technologies according to the 1997 Policy Information Report for Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology in U.S. Schools. These technologies included computers, multimedia computers, the Internet, networks, cable TV, and satellite technology, amongst other technology-based resources.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:20" href="#fn:20">20</a>
More recently, ubiquitous computing devices, such as computers and tablets, are being used as networked collaborative technologies in the classroom.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:21" href="#fn:21">21</a> Computers, tablets, and mobile devices may be used in educational settings within groups, between people, and for collaborative tasks.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:22" href="#fn:22">22</a> These devices provide teachers and students access to the World Wide Web in addition to a variety of software applications.

<h2 id="pedagogy">Pedagogy</h2>
The integration of electronic devices into classrooms has been cited as a possible solution to bridge access for students and close achievement gaps that are subject to the <a href="/facts/Digital_divide/8EK5dtcv">digital divide</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:23" href="#fn:23">23</a> Several motivations have been cited for integrating high-tech hardware and software into school, such as (1) making schools more efficient and productive than they currently are, (2) if this goal is achieved, teaching and learning will be transformed into an engaging and active process connected to real life, and (3) is to prepare the current generation of young people for the future workplace.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:24" href="#fn:24">24</a> The <a href="/facts/Computer/SQe1aK05">computer</a> has access to <a href="/facts/Graphics/1V76IF8J">graphics</a> and other functions students can use to express their creativity.
Among other tools that have been noted as being effective as a way of technology integration are <a href="/facts/Overhead_projector/M8V2Y4xa">overhead projectors</a>, student response clickers, <a href="/facts/Podcasts/arkeh0YV">podcasts</a>, <a href="/facts/Digital_cameras/LSGTserm">digital cameras</a>, <a href="/facts/Smart_phones/cSIrBMWG">smart phones</a>, <a href="/facts/Tablet_computer/6pGX2I7b">tablets</a>, <a href="/facts/Digital_media/QLXzDrhL">digital media</a>, and <a href="/facts/Blogs/bb6awu2X">blogs</a>. Other examples of technology integration include translation memories and smart computerized translation programs, among the newest integrations that are changing the field of linguistics.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:25" href="#fn:25">25</a>

<h3>Paradigms</h3>
Most research in technology integration has been criticized for being atheoretical and <a href="/facts/Ad_hoc/IYxx5Ha8">ad hoc</a> driven more by the affordances of the technology rather than the demands of pedagogy and subject matter. In 2012 Armstrong argued that multimedia transmission limits learning to simple content because it is difficult to deliver complicated content through multimedia.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:26" href="#fn:26">26</a>
One approach that attempts to address this concern is a framework describing the nature of teacher knowledge for successful technology integration. The <a href="/facts/Technological_pedagogical_content_knowledge/8u4e9h6c">technological pedagogical content knowledge</a> or TPACK framework has recently received some positive attention.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:27" href="#fn:27">27</a>
Another model that has been used to analyze tech integration is the SAMR framework, developed by Ruben Puentedura.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:28" href="#fn:28">28</a> This model attempts to measure the level of tech integration with the four levels that go from enhancement to transformation: substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:29" href="#fn:29">29</a>

<h3>Constructivism</h3>
<a href="/facts/Constructivism_(learning_theory)/AGBx90xm">Constructivism</a> is a crucial component of technology integration. It is a <a href="/facts/Constructivism_(learning_theory)/AGBx90xm">learning theory</a> that describes the process of students constructing their own <a href="/facts/Knowledge/joozoaup">knowledge</a> through collaboration and <a href="/facts/Inquiry-based_learning/M7wGswXs">inquiry-based learning</a>. According to this theory, students learn more deeply and retain information longer when they have a say in what and how they will learn. Inquiry-based learning, thus, is researching a question that is personally relevant and purposeful because of its direct correlation to the one investigating the knowledge.
As stated by <a href="/facts/Jean_Piaget/gQQBtbCU">Jean Piaget</a>,<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:30" href="#fn:30">30</a> constructivist learning is based on four stages of cognitive development. In these stages, children must take an active role in their learning and produce meaningful works in order to develop a clear understanding. These works are a reflection of the knowledge that has been achieved through active self-guided learning. Students are active leaders in their learning and the learning is student-led rather than teacher–directed.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:31" href="#fn:31">31</a>
Many teachers use a constructivist approach in their classrooms assuming one or more roles: facilitator, collaborator, curriculum developer, team member, community builder, educational leader, or information producer.

<h3>Controversy</h3>
There is unsettled debate concerning the efficacy of computers in the classroom regarding learning and student performance. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report "Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection" highlights that while access to computers at home is widespread, the use of computers in schools varies. Specifically, “In 2012, 96% of 15-year-old students in OECD countries reported that they have a computer at home, but only 72% reported using a desktop, laptop or tablet computer at school. Only 42% of students in Korea and 38% of students in Shanghai-China reported that they use computers at school - and Korea and Shanghai-China were among the top performers in the digital reading and computer-based mathematics tests in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2012."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:32" href="#fn:32">32</a> Countries like Korea and Shanghai-China, where computer use in schools is less common, have achieved high performance in digital reading and computer-based mathematics tests. On the other hand, countries with more prevalent internet use for schoolwork have experienced a decline in reading performance over time, observed by PISA scores.
Schools across the United States have committed to adopting technology in the classroom, but education research and policy are inconclusive on whether technology helps or hinders student performance and creativity. The push to involve students with a screen was exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic when remote and hybrid learning models were instituted. Many educators and researchers viewed integrating computers in the classroom as challenging due to the complex relationship between creativity and technology. In "Creativity and technology in teaching and learning," Danah Henriksen et al. emphasizes the lack of common ground and research integration in understanding how creativity and technology intersect in educational practice.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:33" href="#fn:33">33</a> The disconnect between research and classroom realities, conflicting stakeholder demands, and varying definitions of creativity heavily contribute to the controversies technology has brought to learning. The article suggests involving practitioners in research, bridging the gap between theory and practice, and engaging in action research to address the complexities of implementing creativity and technology in classrooms. Thus, the relationship between technology and learning lacks consensus and shared understanding both within and between disciplines and research.
Excessive reliance on computers may diminish human interaction and interpersonal skills. Despite the extensive research on interaction in online learning, educators often struggle to recreate the same level of engagement as face-to-face classes. Interpersonal interaction, a crucial but complex aspect of online learning, remains a challenge. The study "Purposeful Interpersonal Interaction in Online Learning: What is it and How is it Measured?" by Scott Mehall at Bloomsburg University aims to provide a new perspective on interpersonal interaction in online learning called purposeful interpersonal interaction (PII). By examining various types of interpersonal interaction highlighted in existing literature, they found that we can identify those that lead to improved student outcomes. PII encompasses three key interaction types: purposeful interpersonal instructional interaction, purposeful social interaction, and supportive interaction. These interactions have been linked to important student outcomes, such as perceived learning, satisfaction, and academic achievement.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:34" href="#fn:34">34</a> In conclusion, overemphasis on computer-based learning could potentially lead to a decrease in these valuable social interactions.

<h2 id="tools">Tools</h2>
<h3>Interactive whiteboards</h3>
<a href="/facts/Interactive_whiteboard/hGats95G">Interactive whiteboards</a> are used in many schools as replacements for standard whiteboards and provide a way to allow students to interact with material on the computer. In addition, some interactive whiteboard software allows teachers to record their instruction.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:35" href="#fn:35">35</a>

<ul><li><a href="/facts/3D_computer_graphics/zlWW6eaF">3D</a> <a href="/facts/Virtual_environment/kEXLIU38">virtual environments</a> are also used with interactive whiteboards as a way for students to interact with 3D <a href="/facts/Virtual_learning_environment/18gsWq6y">virtual learning</a> objects employing kinetics and <a href="/facts/Haptic_technology/0TuxNUcs">haptic</a> touch the classroom. An example of the use of this technique is the <a href="/facts/Open-source_software/HzTaB8E9">open-source</a> project <a href="/facts/Edusim/G3pjQKU0">Edusim</a>.</li>
<li>Research has been carried out to track the worldwide Interactive Whiteboard market by Decision Tree Consulting (DTC), a worldwide research company. According to the results, interactive Whiteboards continue to be the biggest technology revolution in classrooms, across the world there are over 1.2 million boards installed, and over 5 million classrooms are forecast to have Interactive Whiteboards installed by 2011, Americas are the biggest region closely followed by <a href="/facts/Europe,_the_Middle_East_and_Africa/9VFa2YMm">EMEA</a>, and Mexico's <a href="/facts/Enciclomedia/4ec7838X">Enciclomedia</a> project to equip 145,000 classrooms is worth $1.8 billion and is the largest education technology project in the world.</li>
<li>Interactive whiteboards can accommodate different learning styles, such as visual, tactile, and audio.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:36" href="#fn:36">36</a></li></ul>
Interactive Whiteboards are another way that technology is expanding in schools. By assisting the teacher to help students more kinesthetically as well as finding different ways to process there information throughout the entire classroom.

<h3>Response systems</h3>
<a href="/facts/Student_response_systems/5lf2A2Vj">Student response systems</a> consist of handheld remote control units, or response pads, which individual students operate. An infrared or radio frequency receiver attached to the teacher's computer collects the data submitted by students. The CPS (Classroom Performance System),<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:37" href="#fn:37">37</a> once set, allows the teacher to pose a question to students in several formats. Students then use the response pad to send their answer to the infrared sensor. Data collected from these systems is available to the teacher in real-time and can be presented to the students in a graph form on an LCD projector. The teacher can also access a variety of reports to collect and analyze student data. These systems have been used in higher education science courses since the 1970s and have become popular in K-12 classrooms beginning in the early 21st century.
<a href="/facts/Audience_response/h8C9zRf8">Audience response systems</a> (ARS) can help teachers analyze, and act upon student feedback more efficiently. For example, with polleverywhere.com, students text in answers via mobile devices to warm-up or quiz questions. The class can quickly view collective responses to the multiple-choice questions electronically, allowing the teacher to differentiate instruction and learn where students need help most.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:38" href="#fn:38">38</a>
Combining ARS with peer learning via collaborative discussions has also proven particularly effective. When students answer an in-class conceptual question individually, discuss it with their neighbors, and then vote again on the same or a conceptually similar question, the percentage of correct student responses usually increases, even in groups where no student had previously given the correct answer.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:39" href="#fn:39">39</a>

<h2 id="types">Types</h2>
<h3>Mobile learning</h3>
<a href="/facts/Mobile_learning/NTThKlWt">Mobile learning</a> is defined as "learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices".<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:40" href="#fn:40">40</a> A mobile device is essentially any device that is portable and has internet access and includes tablets, smartphones, cell phones, <a href="/facts/E-book_reader/D7a76tKm">e-book readers</a>, and <a href="/facts/MP3_player/QHTLMGu4">MP3 players</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:41" href="#fn:41">41</a> As mobile devices become increasingly common personal devices of K-12 students, some educators seek to utilize downloadable applications and interactive games to help facilitate learning. This practice can be controversial because many parents and educators are concerned that students would be off-task because teachers cannot monitor their activity.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:42" href="#fn:42">42</a> This is currently being troubleshot by forms of mobile learning that require a log-in, acting as a way to track engagement of students.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:43" href="#fn:43">43</a>

<h4>Benefits</h4>
According to findings from four meta-analyses, blending technology with face-to-face teacher time generally produces better outcomes than face-to-face or online learning alone. Research is currently limited on the specific features of technology integration that improve learning. Meanwhile, the marketplace of learning technologies continues to grow and vary widely in content, quality, implementation, and context of use.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:44" href="#fn:44">44</a>
Research shows that adding technology to K-12 environments, alone, does not necessarily improve learning. What matters most to implementing mobile learning is how students and teachers use technology to develop knowledge and skills, which requires training.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:45" href="#fn:45">45</a>
It can keep students focused for longer periods of time. The use of computers to look up information/data is a time saver, especially when used to access a comprehensive resource like the Internet to conduct research. This time-saving aspect can keep students focused on a project much longer than they would with books and paper resources and it helps them develop better learning through exploration and research.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:46" href="#fn:46">46</a>

<h2 id="covid-19">COVID-19</h2>
COVID-19 changed the perspective of many teachers who had to adapt to the online world when face-to-face interaction became impossible during the COVID-19 pandemic.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:47" href="#fn:47">47</a> It caused a huge disruption in schools, colleges, and universities around the world affecting the way traditional education was held.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:48" href="#fn:48">48</a> Emergency teaching differs from online teaching where teachers are prepared and apt to teach because they have the knowledge and the right tools such as computer literacy and digital literacy.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:49" href="#fn:49">49</a>
During the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers were forced to implement Information Communication and Technology (ICT) applications.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:50" href="#fn:50">50</a> ICT enabled teachers to gain competencies to increase their teaching methods and enhance the learning process of students.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:51" href="#fn:51">51</a> Teachers had to implement applications such as Microsoft Team, Google Workplace, Microsoft Office, Canva, YouTube, Kahoot!, and Zoom.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:52" href="#fn:52">52</a> Researchers found that there was a wide spectrum of help that was offered to students, depending on the university.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:53" href="#fn:53">53</a> Student engagement and interaction diminished as many students preferred to not turn their video camera on during virtual sessions.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:54" href="#fn:54">54</a> Communication between students and teachers/school staff was less frequent than in face-to-face interaction.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:55" href="#fn:55">55</a>

<h2 id="teachers">Teachers</h2>
<h3>Technology education standards</h3>
<a href="/facts/National_Educational_Technology_Standards/kHF9w1ty">National Educational Technology Standards</a> (NETS) served as a roadmap since 1998 for improved teaching and learning by <a href="/facts/Educator/5zkjcWo8">educators</a>. As stated above, these standards are used by teachers, students, and administrators to measure competency and set higher goals to be skillful.
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills is a national organization that advocates for 21st-century readiness for every student. Their most recent Technology Plan was released in 2010, "Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology".<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:56" href="#fn:56">56</a> This plan outlines a vision "to leverage the learning sciences and modern technology to create engaging, relevant, and personalized learning experiences for all learners that mirror students' daily lives and the reality of their futures. In contrast to traditional classroom instruction, this requires that students be put at the center and encouraged to take control of their own learning by providing flexibility on several dimensions."<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:57" href="#fn:57">57</a>
Although tools have changed dramatically since the beginnings of educational technology, this vision of using technology for empowered, self-directed learning has remained consistent.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:58" href="#fn:58">58</a>

<h3>PCK and TRACK</h3>
In 1986, <a href="/facts/Lee_Shulman/pDpdGeyv">Lee Shulman</a> worked on his theory about pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) which identified two areas in which teachers needed to be proficient. These areas were content knowledge, which would be passed on to students, and pedagogical knowledge, which refers to techniques that teachers can use to ensure the learning of students.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:59" href="#fn:59">59</a><blockquote>Shulman (1986, 1987) states that teachers’ competencies should involve content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, curriculum knowledge, knowledge of learners’ characteristics, educational context knowledge, educational outcomes, objectives, values, and philosophical and historical foundations.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:60" href="#fn:60">60</a></blockquote>The TRACK (technological pedagogical content knowledge) model was created to provide online teaching knowledge to teachers and to add technological content knowledge as another proficiency skill that teachers needed to succeed in the new digital world.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:61" href="#fn:61">61</a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:62" href="#fn:62">62</a><blockquote>The benefits of technology integration include engagement, enhanced skills, and collaborative learning. Teachers are usually responsible to coordinate the technology integration in classrooms. Studies show that students have better academic performance when technological integration is involved when compared with traditional teaching.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:63" href="#fn:63">63</a></blockquote>
<h2 id="examples-of-activities">Examples of activities</h2>
<h3>CyberHunt</h3>
The term "hunt" refers to finding or searching for something. "<a href="/facts/CyberHunt/ywqoy4Ry">CyberHunt</a>" means an online activity which learners use the internet as tool to find answers to the question's based upon the topics which are assigned by someone else. Hence learners also can design the CyberHunt on some specific topics.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:64" href="#fn:64">64</a> a CyberHunt, or internet scavenger hunt, is a <a href="/facts/Project-based_learning/CDpnlvJS">project-based activity</a> which helps students gain experience in exploring and browsing the <a href="/facts/Internet/Xw1rVvJU">internet</a>. A CyberHunt may ask students to interact with the site (e.g.: play a game or watch a video), record short answers to teacher questions, as well as read and write about a topic in depth. There are basically two types of CyberHunt: 

<ul><li>A simple task, in which the teacher develops a series of questions and gives the students a <a href="/facts/Hypertext/qD8ozxSb">hypertext</a> link to the URL that will give them the answer.</li>
<li>A more complex task, intended for increasing and improving student internet search skills. Teachers ask questions for students to answer using a search engine.</li></ul>
<h3>WebQuests</h3>
It is an inquiry oriented activity in which most or all of the information used by the learners which are drawn out by the internet/web. It is designed to use learner 'time well', to focus on using information rather than on looking for it and to support the learners to think at the level of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. It is the wonderful way of capturing student's imagination and allowing them to explore in a guided, meaningful manner. It allow the students to explore issues and find their own answers.
There are six building blocks of webQuests:

<ol><li>The introduction – capturing the student's interest.</li>
<li>The task-describing the activities end product.</li>
<li>The resources-web sites, students will use to complete the task.</li>
<li>The evaluation-measuring the result of the activity.</li>
<li>The conclusion-summing up of the activity.</li></ol>
<a href="/facts/WebQuest/7KdJ7kvL">WebQuests</a> are student-centered, web-based curricular units that are interactive and use Internet resources. The purpose of a webQuest is to use <a href="/facts/Information/3LdrzXtJ">information</a> on the <a href="/facts/World_Wide_Web/wvnTrWFq">web</a> to support the instruction taught in the classroom. A webQuest consists of an introduction, a task (or final project that students complete at the end of the webQuest), processes (or instructional activities), web-based resources, evaluation of learning, reflection about learning, and a conclusion.

<h3>WISE</h3>
The <a href="/facts/Web-based_Inquiry_Science_Environment/bTJM9k3d">Web-based Inquiry Science Environment</a> (WISE) provides a platform for creating inquiry science projects for middle school and high school students using evidence and resources from the Web. Funded by the <a href="/facts/U.S._National_Science_Foundation/FlDT8TbW">U.S. National Science Foundation</a>, WISE has been developed at the <a href="/facts/University_of_California,_Berkeley/MXVEjklr">University of California, Berkeley</a> from 1996 until the present. WISE inquiry projects include diverse elements such as online discussions, data collection, drawing, argument creation, resource sharing, concept mapping and other built-in tools, as well as links to relevant web resources. It is the research-focused, open-source inquiry-based learning management system that includes the student- learning environment project authoring environment, grading tool, and tool and user/ course/ content management tools.

<h3>Virtual field trip</h3>
A <a href="/facts/Virtual_field_trip/QkNFPUcN">virtual field trip</a> is a website that allows the students to experience places, ideas, or objects beyond the constraints of the classroom[why?].
A virtual field trip is a great way to allow the students to explore and experience new information. This format is especially helpful and beneficial in allowing schools to keep the cost down. Virtual field trips may also be more practical for children in the younger grades, due to the fact that there is not a demand for chaperones and supervision. Although, a virtual field trip does not allow the children to have the hands on experiences and the social interactions that can and do take place on an actual field trip. An educator should incorporate the use of hands on material to further their understanding of the material that is presented and experienced in a virtual field trip. It is a guided exploration through the www that organizes a collection of pre- screened, its thematically based web pages into a structure online learning experience

<h3>ePortfolio</h3>
An <a href="/facts/EPortfolio/Bg079grT">ePortfolio</a> is a collection of student work that exhibits the student's achievements in one or more areas over time. Components in a typical student ePortfolio might contain creative writings, paintings, photography, math explorations, music, and videos. And it is a collection of work developed across varied contexts over time. The portfolio can advance learning by providing students and faculty with a way to organize, archive and display pieces of work.

<h2 id="references">References</h2>

<ol>
<li id="fn:1">"Using technology to increase student participation". techparticipation.blogspot. September 1, 2009. <a href="http://techparticipation.blogspot.in/2009/09/technology-integration-definition.html" target="_blank">http://techparticipation.blogspot.in/2009/09/technology-integration-definition.html</a> <a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:2">"What Is Successful Technology Integration?". Edutopia. November 5, 2007. <a href="https://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-guide-description" target="_blank">https://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-guide-description</a> <a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:3">"Chapter 7: Technology Integration, U.S. Department of Education". National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). December 9, 2008. <a href="http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/tech_schools/chapter7.asp" target="_blank">http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/tech_schools/chapter7.asp</a> <a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:4">Jackson, Steven; Pompe, Alex; Krieshok, Gabriel (8–11 September 2011). "The Work to Make a Home Network Work". Things Fall Apart: Maintenance, Repair, and Technology for Education Initiatives in Rural Namibia. Seattle, Washington. pp. 283–90. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.459.6466. doi:10.1007/1-4020-4023-7_24. ISBN 978-1-4020-4022-1. S2CID 3056994. {{cite book}}: |newspaper= ignored (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) <a href="978-1-4020-4022-1" target="_blank">978-1-4020-4022-1</a> <a href="#fnref:4" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:5">Grinter, Rebecca; Edwards, W. Keith (18–22 September 2005), "Ecscw 2005", Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Paris, France, pp. 469–488, CiteSeerX 10.1.1.459.6466, doi:10.1007/1-4020-4023-7_24, ISBN 978-1-4020-4022-1, S2CID 3056994 <a href="978-1-4020-4022-1" target="_blank">978-1-4020-4022-1</a> <a href="#fnref:5" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:6">Kervin, Lisa; Mantei, Jessica (2010). "Supporting educators with the inclusion of technology within literacy classrooms: A framework for "action"". Journal of Technology Integration in the Classroom. 2 (3): 43–54. <a href="#fnref:6" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:7">Yu, Chien (2013). "The Integration of Technology in the 21st Century Classroom: Teachers' Attitudes and Pedagogical Beliefs Toward Emerging Technologies". Journal of Technology Integration in the Classroom. 5 (1): 6. <a href="#fnref:7" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:8">Mehan, Hugh (March 1989). "Microcomputers in Classrooms: Educational Technology or Social Practice". Anthropology & Education Quarterly. 20 (1): 4–22. doi:10.1525/aeq.1989.20.1.05x1208l. JSTOR 3195700. <a href="/wiki/Doi_(identifier)" target="_blank">/wiki/Doi_(identifier)</a> <a href="#fnref:8" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:9">Yu, Chien (2013). "The Integration of Technology in the 21st Century Classroom: Teachers' Attitudes and Pedagogical Beliefs Toward Emerging Technologies". Journal of Technology Integration in the Classroom. 5 (1): 6. <a href="#fnref:9" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:10">Anderson, L. S. (1996), K–12 technology planning at state, district, and local levels, National Center for Technology Planning, Mississippi State University <a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:11">Song, Shin-Cheol; Owens, Emiel (2011). "Rethinking Technology Disparities and Instructional Practices within Urban Schools: Recommendations for School Leadership and Teacher Training". Journal of Technology Integration in the Classroom. 3 (2): 23–36. <a href="#fnref:11" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:12">Coley, R. DJ.; Cradler, J.; Engel, P. K. (1997), Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology in U.S. Schools, Policy Information Report, pp. 1–67 <a href="#fnref:12" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:13">Coley, R. DJ.; Cradler, J.; Engel, P. K. (1997), Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology in U.S. Schools, Policy Information Report, pp. 1–67 <a href="#fnref:13" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:14">Coley, R. DJ.; Cradler, J.; Engel, P. K. (1997), Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology in U.S. Schools, Policy Information Report, pp. 1–67 <a href="#fnref:14" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:15">Goals 2000: Educate America Act, House of Representatives 1804 Amendment U.S. Congress 103 (8 February 1994). <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr1804/text/ih" target="_blank">https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr1804/text/ih</a> <a href="#fnref:15" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:16">TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 – 110 STAT. 56., House of Representatives 1804 Amendment U.S. Congress 104 (8 February 1996). <a href="http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/commsites/documents/pl-104-104.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/commsites/documents/pl-104-104.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:16" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:17">TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 – 110 STAT. 56., House of Representatives 1804 Amendment U.S. Congress 104 (8 February 1996). <a href="http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/commsites/documents/pl-104-104.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.fs.fed.us/specialuses/commsites/documents/pl-104-104.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:17" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:18">Coley, R. DJ.; Cradler, J.; Engel, P. K. (1997), Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology in U.S. Schools, Policy Information Report, pp. 1–67 <a href="#fnref:18" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:19">Coley, R. DJ.; Cradler, J.; Engel, P. K. (1997), Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology in U.S. Schools, Policy Information Report, pp. 1–67 <a href="#fnref:19" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:20">Coley, R. DJ.; Cradler, J.; Engel, P. K. (1997), Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology in U.S. Schools, Policy Information Report, pp. 1–67 <a href="#fnref:20" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:21">Grinter, Rebecca; Edwards, W. Keith (18–22 September 2005), "Ecscw 2005", Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Paris, France, pp. 469–488, CiteSeerX 10.1.1.459.6466, doi:10.1007/1-4020-4023-7_24, ISBN 978-1-4020-4022-1, S2CID 3056994 <a href="978-1-4020-4022-1" target="_blank">978-1-4020-4022-1</a> <a href="#fnref:21" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:22">Dourish, Paul (2001), Where the action is (1st ed.), Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, p. 245, ISBN 9780262541787 <a href="9780262541787" target="_blank">9780262541787</a> <a href="#fnref:22" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:23">Buckingham, David (2007), Beyond technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Polity, p. 209, ISBN 9780745638812 <a href="9780745638812" target="_blank">9780745638812</a> <a href="#fnref:23" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:24">Cuban, Larry (2003), Oversold and underused, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, p. 256, ISBN 9780674011090 <a href="9780674011090" target="_blank">9780674011090</a> <a href="#fnref:24" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:25">"Should Amazon's Robotization Concern Other Industries?". <a href="https://www.novimedgroup.com/blog/should-amazon-s-robotization-concern-other-industries" target="_blank">https://www.novimedgroup.com/blog/should-amazon-s-robotization-concern-other-industries</a> <a href="#fnref:25" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:26">J. Scott Armstrong (2012). "Natural Learning in Higher Education". Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. <a href="https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/files/?whdmsaction=public:main.file&fileID=8113" target="_blank">https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/files/?whdmsaction=public:main.file&fileID=8113</a> <a href="#fnref:26" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:27">"TPACK.ORG". www.tpack.org. Retrieved 2015-11-03. <a href="http://www.tpack.org" target="_blank">http://www.tpack.org</a> <a href="#fnref:27" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:28">SAMRModel.pdf <a href="http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/06/29/LearningTechnologySAMRModel.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2014/06/29/LearningTechnologySAMRModel.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:28" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:29">"Ruben R. Puentedura's Blog". hippasus.com. Retrieved 2015-11-03. <a href="http://hippasus.com/blog/" target="_blank">http://hippasus.com/blog/</a> <a href="#fnref:29" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:30">Wanda Y. Ginn. "JEAN PIAGET – INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT". <a href="http://www.sk.com.br/sk-piage.html" target="_blank">http://www.sk.com.br/sk-piage.html</a> <a href="#fnref:30" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:31">Kay C. Wood; Harlan Smith; Daurice Grossniklaus. "Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development". Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology, University of Georgia. <a href="http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Piaget's_Stages" target="_blank">http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Piaget's_Stages</a> <a href="#fnref:31" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:32">OECD (2015-09-14). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection. PISA. OECD. doi:10.1787/9789264239555-en. ISBN 978-92-64-23954-8. <a href="978-92-64-23954-8" target="_blank">978-92-64-23954-8</a> <a href="#fnref:32" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:33">Henriksen, Danah; Creely, Edwin; Henderson, Michael; Mishra, Punya (2021-08-01). "Creativity and technology in teaching and learning: a literature review of the uneasy space of implementation". Educational Technology Research and Development. 69 (4): 2091–2108. doi:10.1007/s11423-020-09912-z. ISSN 1556-6501. S2CID 255153822. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09912-z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09912-z</a> <a href="#fnref:33" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:34">Mehall, Scott (2020-03-01). "Purposeful Interpersonal Interaction: What is it and How is it Measured?". Online Learning. 24 (1). doi:10.24059/olj.v24i1.2002. ISSN 2472-5730. <a href="https://doi.org/10.24059%2Folj.v24i1.2002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.24059%2Folj.v24i1.2002</a> <a href="#fnref:34" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:35">"Interactive Whiteboards Enhance Classroom Instruction and Learning". www.neamb.com. NEA Member Benefits. Retrieved 2018-04-04. <a href="https://www.neamb.com/professional-resources/benefits-of-interactive-whiteboards.htm" target="_blank">https://www.neamb.com/professional-resources/benefits-of-interactive-whiteboards.htm</a> <a href="#fnref:35" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:36">Alfred N. Basilicato. "Interactive Whiteboards: Assistive Technology for Every Classroom" (PDF). <a href="http://www.meadonline.com/App/InteractiveWhiteboard/Classroom.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.meadonline.com/App/InteractiveWhiteboard/Classroom.pdf</a> <a href="#fnref:36" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:37">Ward, Darrel W. (April 30, 2003). "The Classroom Performance System: The Overwhelming Research Results Supporting This Teacher Tool and Methodology". eInstruction. Retrieved 20 September 2009. <a href="http://www.einstruction.com/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=News.display&Menu=newsroom&content=FormalPaper&id=209" target="_blank">http://www.einstruction.com/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=News.display&Menu=newsroom&content=FormalPaper&id=209</a> <a href="#fnref:37" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:38">Vega, Vanessa (5 February 2013). "Technology Integration Research Review: Additional Tools and Programs". <a href="http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-research-tools-programs" target="_blank">http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-research-tools-programs</a> <a href="#fnref:38" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:39">Vega, Vanessa (5 February 2013). "Technology Integration Research Review: Additional Tools and Programs". <a href="http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-research-tools-programs" target="_blank">http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-research-tools-programs</a> <a href="#fnref:39" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:40">"Mobile learning". <a href="https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHWA_enIN649IN649&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mobile%20learning" target="_blank">https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHWA_enIN649IN649&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mobile%20learning</a> <a href="#fnref:40" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:41">"Mobile Devices for Learning: What You Need to Know". Edutopia. <a href="http://www.edutopia.org/mobile-devices-learning-resource-guide?download=yes&key=1364000111&token=5c58fe7e330446f498435d5a11e1f125" target="_blank">http://www.edutopia.org/mobile-devices-learning-resource-guide?download=yes&key=1364000111&token=5c58fe7e330446f498435d5a11e1f125</a> <a href="#fnref:41" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:42">"Mobile Devices for Learning: What You Need to Know". Edutopia. <a href="http://www.edutopia.org/mobile-devices-learning-resource-guide?download=yes&key=1364000111&token=5c58fe7e330446f498435d5a11e1f125" target="_blank">http://www.edutopia.org/mobile-devices-learning-resource-guide?download=yes&key=1364000111&token=5c58fe7e330446f498435d5a11e1f125</a> <a href="#fnref:42" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:43">"Mobile Devices for Learning: What You Need to Know". Edutopia. <a href="http://www.edutopia.org/mobile-devices-learning-resource-guide?download=yes&key=1364000111&token=5c58fe7e330446f498435d5a11e1f125" target="_blank">http://www.edutopia.org/mobile-devices-learning-resource-guide?download=yes&key=1364000111&token=5c58fe7e330446f498435d5a11e1f125</a> <a href="#fnref:43" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:44">Vega, Vanessa (5 February 2013). "Technology Integration Research Review: Additional Tools and Programs". <a href="http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-research-tools-programs" target="_blank">http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-research-tools-programs</a> <a href="#fnref:44" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:45">Vega, Vanessa (February 5, 2013). "Technology Integration Research Review". Edutopia. <a href="http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-research-learning-outcomes" target="_blank">http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-research-learning-outcomes</a> <a href="#fnref:45" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:46">Huneycutt, Timothy. "Technology in the Classroom: the Benefits of Blended Learning". National Math + Science Initiative. Retrieved 10 March 2015. <a href="http://www.nms.org/Blog/TabId/58/PostId/188/technology-in-the-classroom-the-benefits-of-b" target="_blank">http://www.nms.org/Blog/TabId/58/PostId/188/technology-in-the-classroom-the-benefits-of-b</a> <a href="#fnref:46" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:47">Boonmoh, A., Jumpakate, T., Saengmanee, S., & Rungkaew, T. (2022). "Integration of Technology during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience, Challenges and Needs of Thai EFL Teachers". REFLections. 29 (2): 251–277. <a href="#fnref:47" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:48">Huma Akram, Yang Yingxiu, Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan and Ali Alkhalifah (August 26, 2021). "Technology Integration in Higher Education During COVID-19: An Assessment of Online Teaching Competencies Through Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model". Frontiers in Psychology. 12 (736522): 1–11. <a href="#fnref:48" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:49">Boonmoh, A., Jumpakate, T., Saengmanee, S., & Rungkaew, T. (2022). "Integration of Technology during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience, Challenges and Needs of Thai EFL Teachers". REFLections. 29 (2): 251–277. <a href="#fnref:49" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:50">Huma Akram, Yang Yingxiu, Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan and Ali Alkhalifah (August 26, 2021). "Technology Integration in Higher Education During COVID-19: An Assessment of Online Teaching Competencies Through Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model". Frontiers in Psychology. 12 (736522): 1–11. <a href="#fnref:50" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:51">Huma Akram, Yang Yingxiu, Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan and Ali Alkhalifah (August 26, 2021). "Technology Integration in Higher Education During COVID-19: An Assessment of Online Teaching Competencies Through Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model". Frontiers in Psychology. 12 (736522): 1–11. <a href="#fnref:51" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:52">Boonmoh, A., Jumpakate, T., Saengmanee, S., & Rungkaew, T. (2022). "Integration of Technology during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience, Challenges and Needs of Thai EFL Teachers". REFLections. 29 (2): 251–277. <a href="#fnref:52" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:53">Boonmoh, A., Jumpakate, T., Saengmanee, S., & Rungkaew, T. (2022). "Integration of Technology during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience, Challenges and Needs of Thai EFL Teachers". REFLections. 29 (2): 251–277. <a href="#fnref:53" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:54">Ramaila, S., & Molwele, A. J. (2022). "The Role of Technology Integration in the Development of 21st Century Skills and Competencies in Life Sciences Teaching and Learning". International Journal of Higher Education. 11 (5): 9–17. <a href="#fnref:54" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:55">Boonmoh, A., Jumpakate, T., Saengmanee, S., & Rungkaew, T. (2022). "Integration of Technology during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Experience, Challenges and Needs of Thai EFL Teachers". REFLections. 29 (2): 251–277. <a href="#fnref:55" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:56">Boss, Suzie (8 September 2011). "Technology Integration: A Short History". <a href="http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-history" target="_blank">http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-history</a> <a href="#fnref:56" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:57">Boss, Suzie (8 September 2011). "Technology Integration: A Short History". <a href="http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-history" target="_blank">http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-history</a> <a href="#fnref:57" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:58">Boss, Suzie (8 September 2011). "Technology Integration: A Short History". <a href="http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-history" target="_blank">http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-history</a> <a href="#fnref:58" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:59">Dikmen, C. H., & Demirer, V. (2022). "The Role of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Social Cognitive Variables in Teachers' Technology Integration Behaviors". Participatory Educational Research. 9 (2): 398–415. <a href="#fnref:59" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:60">Dikmen, C. H., & Demirer, V. (2022). "The Role of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Social Cognitive Variables in Teachers' Technology Integration Behaviors". Participatory Educational Research. 9 (2): 398–415. <a href="#fnref:60" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:61">Dikmen, C. H., & Demirer, V. (2022). "The Role of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Social Cognitive Variables in Teachers' Technology Integration Behaviors". Participatory Educational Research. 9 (2): 398–415. <a href="#fnref:61" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:62">Huma Akram, Yang Yingxiu, Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan and Ali Alkhalifah (August 26, 2021). "Technology Integration in Higher Education During COVID-19: An Assessment of Online Teaching Competencies Through Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model". Frontiers in Psychology. 12 (736522): 1–11. <a href="#fnref:62" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:63">Dikmen, C. H., & Demirer, V. (2022). "The Role of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Social Cognitive Variables in Teachers' Technology Integration Behaviors". Participatory Educational Research. 9 (2): 398–415. <a href="#fnref:63" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
<li id="fn:64">"What Is a Cyberhunt?". nmmu.ac.za. <a href="http://www.nmmu.ac.za/cyberhunts/whatisacyberhunt.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nmmu.ac.za/cyberhunts/whatisacyberhunt.htm</a> <a href="#fnref:64" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></li>
</ol>

Technology integration open-in-new

Technology integration