Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of technology in teaching
Impact of technology in teaching
Impact of technology in teaching
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of technology in teaching
Allen, B.S., & Otto, R.G. (1996). Media as lived environments: The ecological psychology of educational technology. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, pp. 199-225. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Aronson, E. Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122-147.
Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29(1), 3-12.
Berge, Z. (1997). Computer conferencing and the on-line classroom. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 3(1), 3-21.
Bohm, D. (1990). On Dialogue. Available: David Bohm Seminars, P.O. Box 1452, Ojai, California 93023.
Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4-12.
Brown, A.L., & Palincsar, A.S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction, Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Chism, N. (1998). Handbook for instructors on the use of electronic class discussion. Ohio State University: Office of Faculty and TA Development.
Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction, Essays in honor of Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Collis, B., Andernach, T., & Van Diepen, N. (1997). Web environments for group-based project work in higher education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 3(2/3), 109-130.
Crook, C. (1994a). Computers and the collaborative experience of learning. London: Routledge.
Engestrom, Y. (1996). Interobjectivity, ideality, and dialectics. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4), 259-265.
Falk, J. (1996). The meaning of the Web [World Wide Web Document]. Available: http://www.scu.edu.au/ausweb95/papers/sociology/falk/
Ferraro, A., Rogers, E., & Geisler, C. (1995). Team learning through computer supported collaborative design [World Wide Web Document]. Indianapolis: Proceedings of the CSCL'95 Conference. Available: http://www-cscl95.indiana.edu/cscl95/ferraro.html
Fischer, G. (1995). Distributed cognition, learning webs, and domain-oriented design environments [World Wide Web Document]. Indianapolis: Proceedings of the CSCL'95 Conference. Available: http://www-cscl95.indiana.edu/cscl95/fischer.html
Fishman, B.J. (1997). Student traits and the use of computer-mediated communication tools: What matters and why? Chicago, Illinois: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Fishman, B.J. (1996). High-end high school communication: Tool use practices of students in a networked environment. Unpublished dissertation: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
Harasim, L. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated graduate courses.
Powell, K. Kalina, C. (2009). Cognitive and Social Constructivism: Developing Tools for an Effective Classroom. Education, 130(2), 241-250. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?did=1937522441&Fmt=7&clientId=22212&RQT=309&VName=PQD. (Document ID: 1937522441).
Vosniadou S. (1996) TOWARDS A REVISED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY FOR NEW ADVANCES IN LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION. Learning and instruction,6( 2), 95-109.
An interview with Karen Cator, director of the Office of Educational Technology, part of the U.S. Department of Education, is presented. When asked about a good example of the use of technology in education, Cator discusses Mooresville Graded School District in Mooresville, North Carolina, which use laptops and interactive whiteboards in education. Cator also addresses the importance of student engagement in education, online courses, and the use of digital media devices in classrooms.
University of Phoenix. (2004). Learning Team Toolkit. Available on the University of Phoenix student/faculty website: http://ecampus.phoenix.edu (March 14, 2015).
Powell, Katherine C, Kalina, Cody J “Cognitive and social constructivism: Developing tools for an effective classroom” Education, Winter2009, Vol. 130 Issue 2, p241-250, 10p
Kilfoye, C. (2013). A voice from the past calls for classroom technology. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(7), 53-56.
Tobey, E., Rekart, D., Buckley, K., & Geers, A. (2004). Mode of communication and classroom
Moore, Beverly. Situated Cognition Versus Traditional Cognitive Theories of Learning. Education, V119, N1, pgs 161-171, Fall 1998.
The roots of synchronous teaching can be date back to the use of closed circuit television in the campus university in decade of 1940. Video conferencing and interactive television which connected remote classrooms came into work in the 1980’s, which allowed students to ask their questions and have discussion’s (Bernard et al., 2004). “Synchronous communication and collaboration tools, such as synchronous text chat, audio-conferencing, video-conferencing, and white boards, are increasingly important components of online learning” (National Center for Accessible Media, 2005). The users of synchronous mode are not limited to individuals and can be multiply used, which have become common teaching applications, though they are considered optional course features (Burnett, 2003).
Collaborative learning is a situation where two or more people attempt to learn something together. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, (born in 1986), introduced his theory that, human development—child development as well as the development of all human kind—is the result of interactions between people and their social environments. What this states is that the development of a “higher education” is the product of comparing and contrasting ideas of others ultimately to conclude a solution to a problem as a whole or group. Everyone’s input in a collaborative situation will play a role in final solution.
How do people learn? A question of interest for both students and teachers. People are different so it should be obvious that there are different methods of learning and teaching. This paper will focus on the Social Cognitive Learning Theory (SCLT), the Constructivist Learning Theory (CLT) and their connection to practice. How each theory can be used to guide and plan educational programs will be discussed with examples to demonstrate how learning outcomes can vary with theory application.
Students in the classroom today represent the first generation to grow up with new technology surrounding them since they were born. It has become common to see children from an early age learn how to use computers, smart phones, video games and other advanced digital tools. The use of the Internet, computer games, and instant messaging has become parts of students every day life. It is an obvious result that today’s students think and process information differently. My generation is considered the last pre-digital generation. As a future educator who will be teaching the 1st generation of digital natives I fear that there are many concerns about preparing students for life and the work environment. This paper examines how the technology available to students has changed the way in which they learn. In addition, I would like to look at the profound implications technology has on student education. I’m curious to find out if the technology available today is helping students le...
The younger generation particularly has seized on the strange communication through the Internet. Using chat groups on different subjects they are taking in school, they conduct live conversations by keyboard through the internet.
Technology has changed many aspects of our lives, so why should we expect less of the classroom atmosphere? Technology in the classroom has changed the way students learn and the way teachers teach. Technology today is integrated into the classroom as a teaching tool rather than being taught as a course. There are many ways that technology is used in today’s classroom such as the World Wide Web, Power Point, and Excel (Starr, 2011). Teachers will continue to be the most important aspect of a child’s education because they teach and technology does not. The use of technology in the classroom can bring advantages to a child’s education but can also bring disadvantages (Cleaver, 2011).
Technology affects everyone! Whether positive or negative, we are all affected, how it manifests itself into problems for youth will be studied and debated for years. Balancing technology throughout the educational process and keeping with current trends and uses of technology will affect everyone. Technology has transformed our youth’s daily and social lives. How do we measure the effects of technology on our ability to socialize or have a successful social life? Socializing is not just talking face to face, it’s our ability to interact, learn, and create original thought. Technology hindering today’s youth and their ability to socialize is affecting their capacity to read, write, and communicate. Today’s youth depends on careful considerations for the implementation of technologies. Our youth do not have the capability to convey their emotions through the use of technology, understand sadness, happiness or joy through simple text or emails. Communicating through the use of text, chat, and social network sites is lost using abbreviations and slang, inhibiting the use of the Standard English language. Using computers and hand held devices for relationships, reading, writing, and entertainment, turning them into introverted and socially inept individuals. Current trends resonating from our educational institutions to our workplace can be examples of how technology has altered the way younger people communicate. This tragedy transcends from youth to adulthood affecting the workplace. Social networking sites have begun to take hours away from employers. How do students understand ethical and moral dilemmas unless they are allowed to make mistakes and work through a particular problem? Creative and original thought needs...