Talk:Technology integration

The Need for Web Site Evaluations

I am going to work on this section, as many of the other sections have been covered. The internet has many resources, but it takes time to decipher which resources are worthwhile. Also, at the elementary level, finding sites that are appropriate for this level can be challenging.--Wsdebordenave (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are my additions to the post. I also put them on the wiki page, but wanted to make sure you would know, as I am unfamiliar with this process.

The amount of information being placed on the web is doubling every twelve months.^{[citation needed]} Due to the rapid increase of information, it is essential that educators and students know how to discern valuable sources. To ensure that educators and students make valid educational choices, it is necessary to provide guidelines to help filter web sites. These seven steps are a helpful resource.

• Identify the right questions
• Organize the search
• Select appropriate search tools
• Analyze online resources
• Synthesize, sort, and sift
• Publishing new information
• Get feedback

Due to the plethora of web sites, educators and students face the difficult challenges of sorting to find web sites that are safe, credible, and reliable. This takes an incredible amount of time to do properly. An educator can use an entire planning session looking for one valuable resource to present in the classroom. A student can spend an entire evening researching a project using invalid sources. These problems will continue to persist as the web continues to grow.

To aid educators and students, there are more on-line resources available to help them evaluate the merit of websites. Kathy Schrock, http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schrockguide/eval.html, provides a comprehensive list to help educators evaluate a website for classroom use. Schrock’s website also provides different criteria for web site evaluation based on the level at which an educator instructs, ie. elementary, middle, or secondary. Other time-saving tools that Schrock’s site provides are links to pre-evaluated sites and handouts to help students evaluate websites independently. Another comprehensive tool for educators and secondary students is the University of California Berkley web site, http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Guides/Internet/Evaluate.html , which provides the reader with a strategic way to evaluate web sites. This site may also prove useful for middle school students based on their reading ability and background knowledge about computers.

A problem that educators face is the readability of a web site. There are many credible, safe, and reliable web sites that educators can use to find information on their topic of study. The problem that arises is whether their students will be able to glean any information independently from these sites based on their students’ ability to read. Many web sites for Science and Social Studies, although factually correct, are laden with content specific vocabulary that is challenging for poor readers. There are web sites that help educators find quality and appropriate sites for their students for a fee. For example, the netTrekker company provides educators and parents with a comprehensive evaluation of websites. Some of the helpful tips it offers are, overall rating from 1-5, readability ranking 1-5, and whether the link has a video or audio links. The web site does provide many other services, as well http://www.nettrekker.com/. Sites such as netTrekker, provide educators and students a safe, credible, and efficient way to search the internet. The downside to these types of web sites is that they are fee based.--Wsdebordenave (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this being edited as part of a class project? ------ Astrokey44 12:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This could be a fabulous section - many educators need to see the substance behind the marketing of education products...

Suggest we split the "technology" from the "pedagogy"

The article could start with a definition for Technology Integration. Possible subtopics include: Constructivism, Technology Integration Tools for the Classroom (break this into subtopics)

  Internet: Cyberhunt, Webquests, Online Databases, Podcasts, Web 2.0 ex: Blogs
  Interactive Whiteboards and Student Response Systems
  Copyright/ Plagarism
  Characteristics of a Good Technology Integration Lesson -- 
      subtopics to include rubric sites as well as sites that have quality lesson plans

hclibHclib (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we can divide the topics into Issues and Tools. This is a solid idea; I would recommend that the Promise and Challenge section be improved as this is the core of the concept of Technology Integration. Jdodwyer (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC) James O'Dwyer

I would like to see the topics divided into Issues and Tools. Some of the "tools" could be podcasts, blogs, and virtual field trips. While plagiarism, purchasing technology, and copyright could be examples of "issues".

I love the idea of having virtual field trips in the article. I think they are an obvious way to integrate technology. After the students take a "trip" there are so many ways to extend the lessons. Instead of a one day trip, students could view webcams for a longer period of time to explain the conditions that they are seeing on their "trip".

Fjfitzpatrick (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that if we are going to include a "tools" section in the article we should provide examples of each of those tools. I also like the idea of the virtual field trip and I think that it would benefit a number of people if they could learn how to create one bu first using it. Once they have used one they can extend on it themselves and add it to the article. Kthostetler (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking using Google Earth as a format then for a virtual field trip? I think we should add that to our list of "tools" as well. Maybe our "tools" should be divided into categories such as someone suggested-software and hardware. rltoy (talk) 20:53 4 December 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC).

The organization of the technology integration article should begin with the first subtopic, "Promise and Challenge". It belongs up front, the promise of technology integration should be discussed up front and then the challenge(s) of technology integration should be highlighted. I would then follow the "New Teaching Methodologies are Needed", followed by "Consructivism" and "Paradigms". I would then go with "Interacting Themes" and the "Interactive White Boards" and "Student Response Systems". Finally, there should be some type of conclusion. Jdodwyer (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please disregard my first post.

I agree that the article should start with a definition of technology integration. It could also include the information from the International Society for Technology. I have never heard of that society but if it is a bonafide society,respected in educational technology circles, then that information should be included. If the International Society for Tech is not a recognized society,then, if it is available,some info on guidelines and criteria for TI in schools should be included in this section.

Then I would use Internet Learning (for lack of a better term) which would include subtopics such as project-based learning, cyberhunts, webquests, podcasts, and virtual field trips, WISE and Understanding by Design. The last two topics were in the article but more information needs to be included in the article on these topics.

Next topic: Tools with a subtopics to include promethean boards, student response systems and I was unsure if digital cameras should be included.

Next another topic entitled communication (?) that covers blogs, discussion boards.

Finally, I think there needs to be topic that covers issues to consider when using Technology in the classroom.

Fewhite (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)FEWhite, Dec. 1, 2008

ISTE is a recognized organization, we can refer to them. www.iste.org if you haven't seen it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjhasley (talk • contribs) 14:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the topics need to be organized, and they are not the way they are. The first should be Philosophy/Pedagogy/Theory, this explains the topic. I think that the next should be tools used to accomplish the integration of technology. This could include links to helpful sites, and could be divided by hardware, software, etc. Next should be troubleshooting, and problems; the negative, if there is, about integrating technology. Finally, the last topic should be about the future needs and/or directions of tech integration. This would close the article nicely and leave the reader with something to think about, as well as possibly inspire them to do more to help the integration of technology along.

cmfutrell (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)cmfutrell, Dec. 2, 2008

I think the article needs to begin with instructional technology defined. This should then be followed by a Pedagogy section with subtopics of paradigms, constructivism, and understanding by design since these are all instructional methods.

I also agree that there should be a tools section with the following subtopics: interactive whiteboards, digital cameras, podcasts, blogs, cyberhunts, and Web Quests. I'd then suggest a "culminating projects"section that would include Virtual field trips, Wikipedia and ePortfolios as subtopics.

An issues topic with subtopics of plagiarism and copyright should come next followed by a References section with the Web Site Evaluation and Online Information subtopics. These are just my preliminary thoughts.

--Stonecf (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Stonecf

After reviewing the article i agree with what some of the others have said that there needs to be a clear definition of what technology is. Then follow it with paradigms, constructivism, and teaching methodologies. Having a tools topic and subtopics of interactive whiteboards, digital cameras, podcasts,webquests and blogs would be a better fit for them. At the end of the article plagiarism, and copyright would be best. Jdstacy8076 (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)JDStacy

I am just trying to give an outline that may be easier to edit and create a map for our final project. These are my thoughts, with some recent additions based on other suggestions above.

1. Definition-as a basic introduction to the topic
Fewhite (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)fewhite

2. Philosophy-with a concentration of purpose/goals of integration
Fewhite (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)fewhite

3. Pedagogy-providing ways teachers can/should interact with students
3.1. Constructivist model
--Long44 (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)3.2. Inquiry-Based learning
3.3. Project-Based learning

4. Tools
4.1. Hardware
4.1.1. video beam
4.1.2. interactive whiteboards
4.1.3. student response systems
rltoy (talk) 21:00 4 December 2008 (UTC)

4.1.4. scanner
4.1.5. digital cameras
4.1.5.1 digital camera
4.1.5.2 web camera
4.1.5.3 digital video camera
4.1.6. microphone
4.1.7. sound output
4.1.7.1 speaker
4.1.7.2 headphones

4.2. Installed Application
4.2.1. word processing
4.2.2. spreadsheets
4.2.3. presentation
4.2.4. database
4.2.5. music - lhpreski
4.2.6. photo
4.2.6. video productionJdstacy8076 (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2008
4.2.7. web-development

4.3. Web-based Applications/sites
4.3.1. book-marking
4.3.2. wikis
4.3.3. blogs Sabesque09 (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
4.3.4. social networking
4.3.5. class management (Blackboard/School Space
I ended up doing this section! --Jpkube (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 4.3.6. ePortfolios--Stonecf (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Stonecf

4.4.Project Based Activities
4.4.1. cyberhunts--<s>Jpkube and hclib (talk) lsgulick03:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
4.4.2. webquest--Mullinmj (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
4.4.3. virtual field trips--Fjfitzpatrick (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
4.4.4. podcast Jcdeyo (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

5. Issues
5.1. Plagiarism
5.2. Copyright

6. Partnership for 21st Century skills

7. Future Technology

Mullinmj (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this a great outline for the topics and subtopics. As we finalize how we are listing what should be in and not I think the Tools topic should be near the end with the Issues topic and have the Future Technology before those two. JdProxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0 acy8076 (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)JDStacy

Thank you for the comments about my outline. Since it appears based on our assignment sheet that we need to start working on this as a group, I went ahead and edited my outline to be more specific. This may seem like a lot with the number of topics, but I do not think we need to address all of them nor do I think that I have it planned or organized to the liking of all. I am just trying to come up with something for us to use as a guide.

Please edit, add, delete, reorganize, etc. in areas needed. I am not so attached to it that you will hurt my feelings with changing it. I am thinking that maybe we could put our names next to topics that we would like to write about with the four tildes (~).Mullinmj (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this list is what we should get started on. I would like to work on the virtual field trips section. This has been a major part of my PGP the last two years.--Fjfitzpatrick (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the list is nice, I feel it is rather large, though it is a large topic as well. Were would podcasts go in the list. I see that you have cyberhunts, wikis, blogs, etc. I think either podcasts should be added, or all the types of projects that can be created using technology, like powerpoints, cyberhunts, and podcasts, should be clumped together.

cmfutrell (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Now the list really looks good. I can't think of anything else to add to it. Glad to see that podcasts got added. cmfutrell (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC) I agree that some of the items could possibly be lump together. For example, I was toying with the idea of lumping a suite of applications together (product examples: AppleWorks or Microsoft Office) instead of having Word Processing, Spreadsheet, etc... listed separately. Please treat this as a working outline and feel free to do what you want with the outline, especially if there is a topic that you want to address that is not currently listed.
I added podcast to list under project-based learning.Mullinmj (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I really like Mike's outline as well and I like the suggestion of signing up for parts we'd like to explore. I'd really like to do ePortfolios if no one else has that as their first choice preference. --Stonecf (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Stonecf

This is a great list, and no, you don't need to complete all of it. Just focus on the ideas we worked on in class. mjhasley (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I would add Podcasts to the project based learning category.--Fjfitzpatrick (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Although, this is a very extensive list, I like the idea that we have addresses so many of the ideas and tools of instructional technology. Sbmayo18 (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Sbmayo18Sbmayo18 (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am going to begin working on Cyberhunts. If anyone is interested in helping out, please respond by editing in this section.  :) By the way, does anyone have a clue why my comments are posting as December 5th when it's 11:00 on Thursday, December 4th?Jpkube (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

1. There needs to be a clear definition of what technology integration is at the very beginning of the article.

2. I think that the list that Mike created above is outstanding!

  a. When adding the links to pedagogy section, case studies could be linked with the various theories
  b. The problem solving method should also be clearly listed subtopic of this section
  c. When listing and explaining hardware, remember that Promethean and Smart boards are brand names, steer clear of using hardware brand names.

3. We should add a section that includes online education through the use of mediums such as Blackboard and SchoolSpace. Jpkube (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I like Mike's list as well. Is there a way we can go ahead and break down the Pedagogy tab and list the different theories in his outline? For example, Constructivism, Inquiry-Based, Multiple Intelligences, By Design. Are there any others I am omitting? Jcdeyo (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree that Mike's list is good. Tools should include the Blackboard and SchoolSpace mediums. I really feel the more exposure teachers can give to this kind of medium the better prepared students will be when they are required to take online formats in higher education. I have not seen anyone address assessment delivery systems. I feel under "tools" we should add things like Exam View or the like as ways to gather data quickly and effectively from students. Let's not forget we are responsible for this type of data in our current educational world so some focus should be placed there. rltoy (talk) 20:46 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I like Mike's List as well. It covers everything and is organized nicely. My vote is to go with his list so we can get started and get finished! Fewhite (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)fewhite Dec. 2, 2008

I like the outline presented. It cuts the number of subtopics. When looking at the 27 subtopics, my first thought was that some of the subtopics needed to be combined or deleted. My thoughts were something like: 1. the basics of using technology, 2. using technology to support instruction, 3. integrating new technology into the classroom, 4. designing projects that combine multiple technologies, 5. Focus on collaboration and inquiry based learning activities that allows the students to have a say in their learning. Lsgulick (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I also like Mike's list. I think the article needs to start off with a good definition of what technology integration (in the classroom) is as a leader for the rest of the article. Then we could organize our ideas about philosophy and pedagogy by discussing the contructivist and problem-based learning approaches to technology and education (subtopics). Then get into the specific types of lessons that are involved -- I guess this would be tools as a topic and then each type could be a subtopic. Overall, three main topics - 1. philosophy/pedagogy, 2. types of instruction, and 3. issues -- I think this would best address the article as a whole. Actually, looking back I'd add a fourth topic that Charles pointed out - 4. future needs -- as he suggested I think this would allow the reader to do further researching and editing to address those needs.Jbrittle (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Jbrittle

I agree that the editing would be a lot easier if the topics and subtopics were better define I like Mike’s outline. Don’t we also need to include Partnership for 21st Century skills since many states are working to incorporate these skills into their instructional models to ensure our students are ready to functions in today’s work environment.

Sbmayo18 (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they would be a good addition, or at list added to the resources, hyperlinked to, whatever. mjhasley (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between tools and hardware? I am trying to decide which subtopic I want to work on. I think I want to I think I want to research TI definition along with the philosophy as a subtopic. Fewhite (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)fewhite Dec. 3, 2009

Hardware is a subcategory of Tools. There can be sub-levels to hardware to provide details about specific hardware used in technology integration. I was thinking we could do the same with the other subcategories of Tools (installed application, web-based applications/sites and project-based activities).Mullinmj (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I too like the list that Mike created. Should we have sub topics under tools to keep hardware and software separate. The tools section looks rather long to me. The list is great and appears to very comprehensive, but do we need to include printers under hardware?lhpreski (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need a medium to stay in touch. There may be some problem with wikipedia being confusing because it is public. Maybe we could sign up for a free private wiki page like pbwiki.com so that it is easier to decipher our classmates from outside sources. 96.228.15.77 (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that Communication Tools and Internet Safety need to be added as topics to the outline. I would like to work with someone on Cyberhunts or Promethean Boards. --Pine3needles (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I signed up for the student response systems. I have used this a little in my classroom and am anxious to learn more. If someone else would like that I could switch to the whiteboards. I was also wondering, what about delivery technology like the clickers you use to advance a Powerpoint or the remote boards that you can use to control your computer. Is that the same as the interactive whiteboards? CPS has them and I think it is a great resource if your classroom is set up. As I mentioned earlier, do we want to add assessment delivery like Exam View in the list? Maybe under installed applications? rltoy (talk) 21:14 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A clear definition of technology for all people, not just educators needs to be first and foremost. Obviously, many people outside of education and even educators are not familiar with the "buzz words". In defining everything, we need to be careful that we do not assume anyone has prior knowledge. So the article should be clear and concise and use terms all can understand. Do you know how long it took me how to figure out how to do the --Long44 (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)????? I am late in getting in the game, but I feel like "tools" and "communication" would be good subtopics. It gives the reader a heads up for those who may never have heard of an interactive white board, etc.--Long44 (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I will take on inquiry-based learning.--Long44 (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

With three of us working on this information, I thought I would put out the following information for which we can begin editing. The current technology article does not have a cyberhunt section, however, there is one in wikipedia. Is our goal to edit the current cyberhunt article or to create a section in technology integration? Please feel free to edit, change, whatever you want to. I have provided two links (which relate to elementary school students) and will be glad to provide more. I have no previous knowledge on posting an wikipedia article. I will be working on trying to learn how to make links, etc as the day goes on. Our completed subtopic is due 12/9. Do either one of you have previous know how to edit, link, etc?

A Cyberhunt is a project based activity that can be integrated into classrooms of all levels. It is a teacher directed activity that incorporates the Internet into the student discovery process. It is an excellent way for beginning internet users (elementary) to explore worthwhile educational sites. This teacher controlled activity assures that students connect to and view reliable and informational internet sites that relate to the curriculum topic. Students are not responsible for searching the internet for applicable websites. A cyberhunt may ask students to interact with the site (ie: play a game or watch a video), record short answers to teacher questions, as well as read and write about a topic in depth. A cyberhunt differs from a web quest. Participating in the cyberhunt is the project based activity.

Cyberhunt, also known as Online Scavenger Hunts, helps students gain experience in exploring and browsing the internet. It is one example of how teachers can teach an academic subject and teach computer skills as well. Two types of cyberhunts: 1. The teacher develops a series of questions and gives the students a hypertext link to the URL that will give the answer. This type is ideal for younger students and ones not very experienced in internet exploration. 2. The focus is on computer skills. To increase and improve student internet search skills, teacher develops questions for students to answer using a search engine with appropriate search techniques to locate the information. This type of cyberhunt is for the more experienced computer user. While there are cyberhunts that deal mainly with factual knowledge gathering, a cyberhunt that is well developed can require higher order thinking skills in order to get students to use the information found at the web sites. For example, teachers may ask students to react to information gathered and to apply it to other scenarios. http://www.ccsdedtech.com/cc/projects/scavenger.htmLsgulick (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Considerations 1. Internet sites are constantly changing so before including a cyberhunt into the educational day, teachers must check and make sure all links are currently working and the information presented is what they want students to view. 2. The lesson objective, grade level, student computer skills and time frame must all be considered when creating a cyberhunt. 3. Student software and teacher software must match. When the teacher creates the cyberhunt, the application used must be on the student computer in order for them to use it. Pine3needles (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Lesson Ideas An internet search for cyberhunts offers many lesson plan ideas that are created by both teachers, school systems and companies. Some suggested links are Scholastic Publishers - http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/instructor/cyberhunt_kids.htm Dixie Elementary School: Mary Ann Rechfertig http://dixiesd.marin.k12.ca.us/dixieschool/Classrooms/Rechtfertig/cyberhunts/ Hclib (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)hclib

The topics that should exist in this article are few in number. They are:

• One "Promise and Challenge" should remain, it is a great title, but is poorly written and screams for revision.
• Two "Paradigms" should remain.
• Three "Consructivism" is excellent and should remain.
• Four "Interacive White Boards" should be edited and I would remoe the second half of the topic.
• Five "Student Response Systems" is well written and should remain.
• Six "New Teaching Methodologies are Needed" is well written and should move near the top of the aricle.
• Seven "Interactin Themes" should remain. It highlights some crucial points on the concepts necessary to succeed with the integration of technology into the classroom.

Most topics should be removed. Specifics on the types of technology to be used in the classroom, such as digital cameras, podcasts, etc., should be referenced but not detailed in the article. Same with the topics of plagiarism, information literacy, etc., they can be referenced but do not belong in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdodwyer (talk • contribs) 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The topics that should be in the article are small in number. The introduction is fine, but I would get rid of everything after "The amount of information..". The topics that would remain would be organized as follows:

1. One "Promise and Challenge"
2. Two "Paradigms"
3. Three "Constuctivism"
4. Five "Interactive White Boards"
5. Six "Student Response Systems"
6. Seven "New Teaching Methodologies are Needed"
7. Eight "Interacting Themes"

Most topics should be removed. Specifics on the types of technology to be used in the classroom, such as digital cameras, shoud be referenced byt not detailed in the article. The topics that deal with information literacy and plagiaiism should be referenced and not included. Jdodwyer (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many topics and items should be combined as to make it more readable. People who use wiki like that the articles are concise and brief. I think some of the extraneous information should be left out or combined to be shorter. For example, the sections on information literacy, online information, plagiarism, and copyright. Some of this information is repetitive. --Wsdebordenave (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)wsdebordenave

I think some of the topics could be combined into 1 and given a more general topic name, for example, topic #5 interactive white boards and topic # 6 student response system could be put under a broader topic-such as technology tools used in classroom, or something like that. Lgmorris (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Lgmorris

The blog section of this article will be modified/updated to include blogging as it relates to the benefits of integrating this particular technology in the classroom.

Sabesque09 (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

should also be linked here 212.183.134.208 (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Vakeger (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

as well as learning objects LOs Vakeger (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently doing a project about integrated technology on Textiles and there is absolutely nothing about this technology in Textiles yet it still applies... If someone could put in something that would be useful for future people. Becky62.252.145.179 (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been working for months on this ^[1] article, I'm wondering if it would be better to integrate it into this article than to pursue getting it published separately, although I feel it would probably be better to link to it from this article?

It's entitled DLC, but there are many terms for this role and 'Instructional Technology Coach' is as good as any. MisterMcHugh (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FabiolaUNO, Datster504, Loveyduck, Armagadda (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rainameyers1522, Mdcoope2.

— Assignment last updated by Vrwebre (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2023 and 11 June 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Miaschaubhut (article contribs). Peer reviewers: The Lightning Chronicles.

— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I wanted to let everyone know that I will be working on editing this page for the next few weeks. I'm planning on editing to create an encyclopedic tone, rather than an essay-like tone in some sections. I will be focusing on the page's organization and structure, as well as copyediting for any grammatical errors.

Tamu2024 (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2024 and 8 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gdugan05, Sam.Cowger1 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rmoner1.

— Assignment last updated by Wordnerd104 (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia article under the section titled “Benefits”, this section dives into the various benefits that students will receive by involving technology integration into their academic progress. One main benefit student’s will gain by integrating technology into their academic progress is that this can keep students on task, as well as focused, for a longer period of time. I found this specific detail very interesting as well as valuable for enhancing our Wikipedia article. Also, in an outside article I found titled “Technology Can Close Achievement Gaps, Improve Learning”, by the Stanford Graduate School of Education, this article explains the benefits of technology integration in the classroom.

Continuously, in the article the authors dive into the statistical reports on how incorporating technology in the classroom helps students who are at an academic risk to improve their academic performance. This article also explains the comparison of students' availability to technology in both high-poverty schools as well as affluent schools. “More dramatically, only 3 percent of teachers in high-poverty schools said that their students have the digital tools necessary to complete homework assignments, compared to 52 percent of teachers in more affluent schools” (Hammond et al., 2014).  This could be a reason why technology is not as integrated as it possibly could be. The reason being that unfortunately technology is not available to all students. As the future is among us the hope is that this can change so more students' Sam.Cowger1 (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Interactive whiteboards and digital displays can enhance classroom instruction and learning for both students and educators. In the wikipedia article the authors go into detail about the immense benefits and the importance of incorporating interactive whiteboards as well as digital displays. In the article titled “The Ultimate Guide to Interactive Whiteboards in the Classroom”. This article is by Becca Patten. This article shares various topics with us such as what an interactive whiteboard actually is, as well as the key features of the device and the advantages that are influenced on both educational staff and their students (Patten, 2023). An interactive whiteboard is a traditional whiteboard that incorporates advanced digital technology within the equipment.

Over the years interactive whiteboards have continued to grow more popular and are being placed in more educational settings. Also some of the key features include the bigger screen size, the options you have for mounting, the tools you are provided with for drawing, and the collaboration aspect (Patten, 2023). As we can see there are many advantages to using an interactive whiteboard both for the educator as well as the students. Lastly, some advantages include the multisensory learning environment, the hands-on learning that takes place, as well as the access to digital resources and lastly the digital organization that can take place as well (Patten, 2023). As we can see there are many advantages in incorporating interactive whiteboards. Sam.Cowger1 (talk) 23:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)