Technology integration

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

Technology Integration is the use of technology tools[citation needed] in general content areas in education in order to allow students to apply computer and technology skills to learning and problem-solving. Generally speaking, the curriculum drives the use of technology and not vice versa.[1][2] Technology integration is defined as the use of technology to enhance and support the educational environment. Technology integration in the classroom can also support classroom instruction by creating opportunities for students to complete assignments on the computer rather than the normal pencil and paper.Technology integration in class would help students to explore more.[3]

The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has established technology standards for students, teachers and administrators in K-12 classrooms. The ISTE, a leader in helping teachers become more effective users of technology, offers this definition of technology integration:

"Curriculum integration with the use of technology involves the infusion of technology as a tool to enhance the learning in a content area or multidisciplinary setting... Effective integration of technology is achieved when students are able to select technology tools to help them obtain information in a timely manner, analyze and synthesize the information, and present it professionally. The technology should become an integral part of how the classroom functions — as accessible as all other classroom tools. The focus in each lesson or unit is the curriculum outcome, not the technology."


Integrating technology with standard curriculum can not only give students a sense of power, but also allows for more advanced learning among broad topics. However, these technologies require infrastructure, continual maintenance and repair – one determining element, among many, in how these technologies can be used for curricula purposes and whether or not they will be successful.[5] Examples of the infrastructure required to operate and support technology integration in schools include at the basic level electricity, Internet service providers, routers, modems, and personnel to maintain the network, beyond the initial cost of the hardware and software.[6]

Technology integration alongside standard education curriculum can provide tools for advanced learning among a broad range of topics. Integration of information and communication technology is often closely monitored and evaluated due to the current climate of accountability, outcome based education, and standardization in assessment.[7]

Technology integration can in some instances be problematic. A high ratio of students to technological device has been shown to impede or slow learning and task completion.[8] In some, instances dyadic peer interaction centered around integrated technology has proven to develop a more cooperative sense of social relations.[9] Success or failure of technology integration is largely dependent on factors beyond the technology. The availability of appropriate software for the technology being integrated is also problematic in terms of software accessibility to students and educators.[8] Another issue identified with technology integration is the lack of long-range planning for these tools within the educative districts they are being used.[10]

Technology contributes to global development and diversity in classrooms and helps develop upon the fundamental building blocks needed for students to achieve more complex ideas. In order for technology to make an impact within the educational system, teachers and students must access to technology in a contextual matter that is culturally relevant, responsive and meaningful to their educational practice and that promotes quality teaching and active student learning.[11] Following the joyous moment when educators realize their students are capable, independent technology users who can create inspiring digital masterpieces, . In the former mindset of teaching with technology, the teacher was the focal point of the classroom, creating (often time-consuming) interactive and multimedia presentations to add shock and awe to his or her lessons and capture the attention of the 21st century child. A new mindset of teaching through technology must emerge, which depends on a vital shift in teacher/student roles. This helps both student and teacher simultaneously. The four C’s are at the heart of the International Society for Technology in Education’s National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for Students, providing a substantial framework for defining the focus of technology objectives for K-12 students. For example, in implementing these standards we have found that even our youngest 21st century learners are capable of independently creating digital storybooks, artwork, presentations, and movies.[12]


The term 'educational technology' was used during the post World War II era in the United States for the integration of implements such as film strips, slide projectors, language laboratories, audio tapes, and television.[13] Presently, the computers, tablets, and mobile devices integrated into classroom settings for educational purposes are most often referred to as 'current' educational technologies. It is important to note that 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.[13]

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.[13] 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).[14] In 1996 the Telecommunications Act provided a systematic change necessary to ensure equitable educational opportunities of bringing new technology into the education sector.[15] 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 Internet, cable, satellite television, and the management component.[15]

A chart of "Technology Penetration in U.S. Public Schools" report states 98% percent of schools reported having computers in the 1995-1996 school year, with 64% Internet access, and 38% working via networked systems.[13] 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.[13] 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.[13]

More recently ubiquitous computing devices, such as computers and tablets, are being used as networked collaborative technologies in the classroom.[6] Computers, tablets and mobile devices may be used in educational settings within groups, between people and for collaborative tasks.[16] These devices provide teachers and students access to the World Wide Web in addition to a variety of software applications.

Technology Education Standards

National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) served as a roadmap since 1998 for improved teaching and learning by educators. 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."[17] 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."[17] Although tools have changed dramatically since the beginnings of educational technology, this vision of using technology for empowered, self-directed learning has remained consistent. [17]


The integration of electronic devices into classrooms has been cited as a possible solution to bridge access for students, to close achievement gaps, that are subject to the digital divide, based on social class, economic inequality, or gender where and a potential user does not have enough cultural capital required to have access to information and communication technologies.[18] Several motivations or arguments 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.[19] The computer has access to graphics and other functions students can use to express their creativity. Technology integration does not always have to do with the computer. It can be the use of the overhead projector, student response clickers, etc. Enhancing how the student learns is very important in technology integration. .Technology will always help students to learn and explore more.[3]


Most research in technology integration has been criticized for being atheoretical and ad hoc, driven more by the affordances of the technology rather than the demands of pedagogy and subject matter. Armstrong (2012) argued that multimedia transmission turns to limit the learning into simple content, because it is difficult to deliver complicated content through multimedia.[20]

One approach that attempts to address this concern is a framework aimed at describing the nature of teacher knowledge for successful technology integration. The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge or TPACK framework has recently received some positive attention. [21]

Another model that has been used to analyze tech integration is the SAMR framework, developed by Dr. Ruben Puentedura. This model attempts to measure the level of tech integration with 4 the levels that go from Enhancement to Transformation: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition.[22]

Constructivism in Technology Integration

Constructivism is a crucial component of technology integration. It is a learning theory that describes the process of students constructing their own knowledge through collaboration and inquiry-based learning. 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 Jean Piaget,[23] constructivist learning is based on four stages of cognitive development. In these stages, children must take an active role in their own 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.[24]

Many teachers use a constructivist approach in their classrooms assuming one or more of the following roles: facilitator, collaborator, curriculum developer, team member, community builder, educational leader, or information producer.


Various tools have or are being used in technology integration[clarification needed]. Some examples of such tools are:

Interactive whiteboards

Interactive whiteboards 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 whiteboards software allow teachers to record their instruction and post the material for review by students at a later time[citation needed].

  • 3D virtual environments are also used with interactive whiteboards as a way for students to interact with 3D virtual learning objects employing kinetics and haptic touch the classroom. An example of the use of this technique is the open-source project Edusim.
  • Research has been carried out[citation needed] 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, over 5 million classrooms are forecast to have Interactive Whiteboards installed by 2011, Americas are the biggest region closely followed by EMEA, and Mexico’s Enciclomedia project to equip 145,000 classrooms is worth $1.8 billion and is the largest education technology project in the world.
  • Interactive whiteboards can accommodate different learning styles, such as visual, tactile, and audio.[25]

Interactive Whiteboards are another way that technology is expanding in schools. By assisting the teacher to helping students more kinestically as well as finding different ways to process there information throughout the entire classroom.

Student Response Systems

Student response systems consist of handheld remote control units, or response pads, which are operated by individual students. An infrared or radio frequency receiver attached to the teacher's computer collects the data submitted by students. The CPS (Classroom Performance System),[26] 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.

Audience Response Systems (ARS) can help teachers analyze, and act upon student feedback more efficiently. For example, with, 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.[27] Research supports that technology has the potential to improve quantitative assessment performance in core subjects, as well as overall GPA. However, there is also mounting evidence that technology not only has a quantitative advantage over traditional methods, but also leads to qualitative improvements; resulting in higher-quality student work. The Harvest Park Middle school found that "students who use computers when learning to write are not only more engaged and motivated in their writing, but also produce work that is of greater length and higher quality, especially at the secondary level" (Gulek, 2005, pg. 29).[28]

Combining ARS with peer learning via collaborative discussions has also been proven to be particularly effective. When students answer an in-class conceptual question individually, then 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 given the correct answer previously.[27]

Among other tools that have been noted as being effective as a way of technology integration are podcasts, digital cameras, smart phones, tablets, digital media, and blogs.

Mobile Learning

Mobile learning is defined as "learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices."[29] A mobile device is essentially any device that is portable and has internet access and includes, tablets, smart phones, cell phones, e-book readers, and mp3 players.[30] 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.[30] This is currently being troubleshooted by forms of mobile learning that require a log-in, acting as a way to track engagement of students.[30]


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.[27]

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 and that requires training.[31] Successful technology integration for learning goes hand in hand with changes in teacher training, curricula, and assessment practices.[32] Many research studies have found that most students prefer learning with technology, which in turn leads to a better attitude towards learning as well as giving them more At risk students are not the only ones that respond positively to the use of technology in confidence. In the Cognitive Tutor study, students were found to be more likely to say that mathematics is useful outside the academic context and to feel more confident in mathematics than students in traditional classes (Morgan, 2002). Students in the Freedom to Benefits of Technology in Education 6 Learn study were found to believe that education "made it easier to do school work, made them more interested in learning, and would help them get better jobs in the future" (Lowther, 2007). The students with special needs in the Fast ForWard study, similarly, felt that they did better on computer based tests and nearly all recommended the program for other students (Dolan, 2005).[28]

An example of teacher professional development is profiled in Edutopia’s Schools That Work series on eMints, a program that offers teachers 200 hours of coaching and training in technology integration over a two-year span.[33] In these workshops teachers are trained in practices such as using interactive whiteboards and the latest web tools to facilitate active learning. In a 2010 publication of Learning Point Associates, statistics showed that students of teachers who had participated in eMints had significantly higher standardized test scores than those attained by their peers.[33]

It can keep students focused for longer periods of time. The use of computers to look up information/ data is a tremendous 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.[34] It is a part of the modern world, and is becoming more and more ubiquitous in our lives every year. It is also a proven method for improving learning. There is strong evidence pointing towards technology leading to better results on standardized tests; however the real emphasis should not be on how it improves test scores, but on how it benefits student learning; how it enables those who are not able to perform at their peak in traditional classrooms to do better; how it motivates students to learn and gives them a more positive attitude towards education; how it can individualize learning by giving feedback; how it can act as a catalyst for change towards more student centered learning; and how it better prepares the youth of today with technical, communicative, interpersonal and creative skills. The question we should be asking is not whether or not technology should be in education, but what can we do to remove barriers so as to further the integration of technology into our schools. Hence, one area in which more research must be done is on how to best move towards more student centered learning with technology and how to best overcome barriers to doing so. Another suggested area for research is on how to provide students with special needs and students who are at-risk with more access to technology since they in particular benefit from using technology.[28]

Benefits of mobile learning

  • Access – Aids voluntary and active learning

A mobile learning environment is about access to content, peers, experts, portfolio artifacts, credible sources, and previous thinking on relevant topics.

  • Metrics – Performance of Knowledge

As mobile learning is a blend of the digital and physical, diverse metrics (i.e., measures) of understanding and "performance of knowledge" will be available.

  • Cloud – Increased collaboration

The cloud is the enabler of "smart" mobility. With access to the cloud, all data sources and project materials are constantly available, allowing for previously inaccessible levels and styles of revision and collaboration.

  • Transparent

Transparency is the natural by-product of connectivity, mobility, and collaboration. As planning, thinking, performance, evaluation and reflection are both mobile and digital, they gain an immediate audience with both local and global communities through social media platforms from twitter to Facebook,linkedin to pinterest

  • Play – Learning by doing

Play is one of the primary characteristics of authentic, progressive learning, both a cause and effect of an engaged mind.

  • Asynchronous Learning

Among the most powerful principles of mobile learning is asynchronous access. This unbolts an educational environment from a school floor and allows it to move anywhere, anytime in pursuit of true entrepreneurial learning.

  • Self-Actuated

With asynchronous access to content, peers, and experts comes the potential for self-actuation. Here, learners plan topic, sequence, audience, and application via facilitation of teachers who now act as experts of resource and assessment.

  • Divergent Thinking

With mobility comes diversity. As learning environments change constantly, that fluidity becomes a norm that provides a stream of new ideas, unexpected challenges, and constant opportunities for revision and application of thinking. Audiences are diverse, thinking is diverse, as are the environments data is being gleaned from by both the student and the teacher.

  • Curation – Evidence storage and Management

Apps and mobile devices can not only support curation, but can do so better than even the most efficient teacher might hope to do. By design, these technologies adapt to learners, store files, compare and evaluate, publish thinking, and connect learners, making curation a matter of process rather than ability.

  • Blending the Learning Styles

A mobile learning environment will always represent a much better path to the whole concept of blended learning. –physical movement, personal communication, Learning styles and digital interaction.

  • Always-On – Classroom never full

Always-on 24hr learning is self-actuated, spontaneous, iterative, and recursive. There is a persistent need for information access, cognitive reflection, and interdependent function through mobile devices.

  • Authentic Learning

All of the previous 11 principles yield an authenticity to learning that is impossible to reproduce in a classroom using the industrialised teaching methods.[35]


The cost of iPads and tablets in the classroom can be a big problem for schools and districts wanting to implement them into the classroom. One of the biggest drawbacks of the use of iPad’s in the classroom is cost. The cost of the device itself is upwards of $770.00 per iPad, which for most school districts is a very hefty price tag. Some school districts such as the L.A. unified school district can avoid the big price tag, but only if the spend at least 400 million dollars for the devices, which equals out to 520,000 iPad’s. This cost represents a 14% increase per iPad over the original estimate. The cost can also affect students who have to provide their own iPad’s as well. When college students were given the opportunity to use the iPad’s, the digital textbooks can cost more than the print textbook and the students are unable to sell the textbook after they are finished using it. Some college students couldn't even afford to purchase the iPad because of its hefty price tag and had to settle for a cheaper device, even though the students would have preferred the more expensive iPad.

Project-based activities

It is the method of teaching were the students gain knowledge and skills.By involving themselves for the more period of time to research and respond to the engaging and complex questions, problems, or challenges. the students will work in groups to solve the problems which are challenging.The students will work in groups to solve the problems which are challenging, real, curriculum based and frequently relating to more than one branch of knowledge. Therefore, a well designed project based learning activity is one which addresses different student learning styles and which does not assume that all students can demonstrate their knowledge in a single standard way. [36]


The project based learning activities involves four basic elements.

  1. An extended time frame.
  2. Collobration.
  3. Inquiry, investigation and research.
  4. The construction of an artifact or performance of a consequential task.

Some activities are

Cyber Hunt

The term "hunt "refers to finding or searching for something. Cyber hunt 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 cyber hunt on some specific topics.[37] a cyberHunt, or internet scavenger hunt, is a project-based activity which helps students gain experience in exploring and browsing the internet. A CyberHunt may ask students to interact with the site (i.e.: 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 2 types of cyberhunts:

  • A simple task, in which the teacher develops a series of questions and gives the students a hypertext link to the URL that will give them the answer.
  • A more complex task, intended for increasing and improving student internet search skills. Teachers ask questions for students to answer using a search engine.


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

  1. The introduction- capturing the students interest.
  2. The task-describing the activities end product.
  3. The resources-web sites, students will use to complete the task.
  4. The evaluation-measuring the result of the activity.
  5. The conclusion-summing up of the activity.

WebQuests are student-centered, web-based curricular units that are interactive and use Internet resources. The purpose of a webQuest is to use information on the web 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.


The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (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 U.S. National Science Foundation, WISE has been developed at the University of California, Berkeley 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.

Virtual field trip

A Virtual field trip 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


An ePortfolio 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/or faculty with a way to organize, archive and display pieces of work.


  1. Teachers of the 21st Century Know the What, Why, and How of Technology Integration, Jolene Dockstader, December 8, 2008
  2. "Why Do We Need Technology Integration". Edutopia.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  3. 3.0 3.1 "Using technology to increase student participation".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  4. Chapter 7: Technology Integration, U.S. Department of Education, December 9, 2008
  5. Jackson, Steven; Pompe, Alex; Krieshok, Gabriel (8–11 September 20011), "Things Fall Apart: Maintenance, Repair, and Technology for Education Initiatives in Rural Namibia", Proceedings of the 2011 iConference, Seattle, Washington, pp. 283–90 Check date values in: |date=, |year= / |date= mismatch (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  6. 6.0 6.1 Grinter, Rebecca; Edwards, W. Keith (18–22 September 2005), "The Work to Make a Home Network Work", Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Paris, France, pp. 469–488<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  7. 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.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  8. 8.0 8.1 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.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  9. 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.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  10. Anderson, L. S. (1996), K–12 technology planning at state, district, and local levels, National Center for Technology Planning, Mississippi State University<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  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.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  12. "TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION FOR THE NEW 21ST CENTURY LEARNER".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 Coley, R. DJ.; Cradler, J.; Engel, P. K. (1997), "Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology in U.S. Schools", Policy Information Repor., pp. 1–67 Missing or empty |title= (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  14. Goals 2000: Educate America Act, House of Representatives 1804 Amendment U.S. Congress 103 (8 February 1994).
  15. 15.0 15.1 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 - 110 STAT. 56., House of Representatives 1804 Amendment U.S. Congress 104 (8 February 1996).
  16. Dourish, Paul (2001), Where the action is (1st ed.), Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, p. 245, ISBN 9780262541787<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2
  18. Buckingham, David (2007), Beyond technology, Cambridge, Mass: Polity, p. 209, ISBN 9780745638812<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  19. Cuban, Larry (2003), Oversold and underused, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, p. 256, ISBN 9780674011090<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  20. J. Scott Armstrong (2012). "Natural Learning in Higher Education". Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  21. "TPACK.ORG". Retrieved 2015-11-03.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  22. "Ruben R. Puentedura's Blog". Retrieved 2015-11-03.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  23. Wanda Y. Ginn. "JEAN PIAGET - INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  24. Kay C. Wood, Harlan Smith, Daurice Grossniklaus. "Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development". Department of Educational Psychology and Instructional Technology, University of Georgia.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  25. Alfred N. Basilicato. "Interactive Whiteboards: Assistive Technology for Every Classroom" (PDF).<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  26. 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.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  27. 27.0 27.1 27.2
  28. 28.0 28.1 28.2 saba, anthony (2009). "Benefits of Technology Integration in Education" (PDF). Cite journal requires |journal= (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  29. Missing or empty |title= (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  30. 30.0 30.1 30.2
  33. 33.0 33.1
  34. Huneycutt, Timothy. "TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM: THE BENEFITS OF BLENDED LEARNING". National Math + Science Initiative. Retrieved 10 March 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  35. Missing or empty |title= (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  36. Missing or empty |title= (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  37. Missing or empty |title= (help)<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>

29. Blume, Howard. "School iPads to cost nearly $100 more each, revised budget shows". Los Angeles Times. 22 Oct. 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2014.

30. Mann, Leslie. "Pros and cons of digital textbooks." Chicago Tribune. 7 Aug. 2013. Web. 12 Nov. 2014. <>.

External links