Difference between revisions of "Educational Technology"

From SI410
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 65: Line 65:
  
 
<h3>Capitalism</h3>
 
<h3>Capitalism</h3>
−
The collection and use of university data has led many higher education institutions to be exploited by EdTech companies that handle the outsourced services. The student data has become monetized, particularly in that businesses can use that data for ‘training’ machine learning systems.<ref>Williamson, Ben, et al. “The Datafication of Teaching in Higher Education: Critical Issues and Perspectives.” Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 25, no. 4, 2020, pp. 351–365., https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1748811</ref>
+
The collection and use of university data has led many higher education institutions to be exploited by EdTech companies that handle the outsourced services. The student data has become monetized, particularly in that businesses can use that data for ‘training’ machine learning systems.<ref>Williamson, Ben, et al. “The Datafication of Teaching in Higher Education: Critical Issues and Perspectives.” Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 25, no. 4, 2020, pp. 351–365., https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1748811</ref> There is a growing group of teacher ‘influencers’ who promote classroom technology via their social media. In exchange, teachers often receive gifts, often in the form of classroom technology. These gifts can range from small gifts to large gifts like $1,300 3-D printers.<ref>Singer, Natasha. “Silicon Valley Courts Brand-Name Teachers, Raising Ethics Issues.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Sept. 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/technology/silicon-valley-teachers-tech.html.</ref> Proponents of this methodology argue that the students are now gaining access to EdTech that the district or school could never afford on its own. Additionally, teachers spend an average of $600 out of pocket every year for classroom supplies, so supporters understand the appeal of embracing free classroom technology.<ref>Singer, Natasha. “Silicon Valley Courts Brand-Name Teachers, Raising Ethics Issues.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Sept. 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/technology/silicon-valley-teachers-tech.html.</ref> However, education experts warn that the incentives from companies may influence the teachers to adopt the promoted tools over other products or traditional approaches. Some opponents argue that even public school teachers accepting perks in exchange for product promotion could go against school district ethics policies or state laws regulating government employees, should the educators not be transparent.<ref>Singer, Natasha. “Silicon Valley Courts Brand-Name Teachers, Raising Ethics Issues.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Sept. 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/technology/silicon-valley-teachers-tech.html.</ref>  
  
 
<h2>See Also</h2>
 
<h2>See Also</h2>

Revision as of 02:22, 11 February 2022

Educational technology or instructional technology (often referred to by shorthand as edtech) is the practice of facilitating learning using both hardware and software technologies.[1] The purpose of educational technology is to improve education through both teaching and learning. Edtech often also refers to the variety of companies that design technology for education.

Tablets have become a popular educational technology tool in the classroom.[2]

Educational technology has been shown to foster creativity, boost motivation, and increase engagement in classrooms.[3] The use of educational technology allows education to be more individualized for each student, which allows for a greater differentiation for students to succeed at their own pace.

In 2020, the global educational technology market size was value at 89.49 billion USD.[4] EdTech is a growing industry that will only grow larger as the digital world advances. However, as the technology expands, so have the ethical concerns over privacy, access, accessibility, and accuracy.

History

In the mid 1900s, audiovisual experts sought to build their industry by focusing on a new concept, educational technology. They wanted to make educational technology distinguishable from traditional classroom teachers. Educational technology has been formally defined many times.[5] One of the early definitions, in 1963, recognizes the “increasing awareness of the need for greater support of, and improvement in, American education” and a need for clarification of the emerging instructional technology.[6]

  • 1963 Definition: “Audiovisual communications is that branch of educational theory and practice concerned with the design and use of messages which control the learning process. It undertakes: (a) the study of the unique and relative strengths and weaknesses of both pictorial and nonrepresentational messages which may be employed in the learning process for any reason; and (b) the structuring and systematizing of messages by men and instruments in an educational environment. These undertakings include planning, production, selection, management, and utilization of both components and entire instructional systems. Its practical goal is the efficient utilization of every method and medium of communication which can contribute to developing the full potential of the learner.”[7]
  • 1977 Definition: "“Educational technology is a complex, integrated process involving people, procedures, ideas, devices, and organization, for analyzing problems and devising, implementing, evaluating, and managing solutions to those problems, involved in all aspects of human learning.”[8]
  • 1994 Definition:“Instructional technology is the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management and evaluation of processes and resources for learning”[9]
Overhead projectors have been used in classrooms for almost a century. [10]

Classroom educational technology has evolved a lot over time. In the 1870s, classrooms started to use primitive versions of the slide projector; use of chalkboards and pencils began at the end of the 19th century.[11] Radios became popular in 1920s classrooms and the overhead projector followed a decade later.

Photocopiers were introduced in 1959 and quickly became a standard practice for the quick reproduction of materials. Calculators and Scantron testing were introduced in 1972 and eventually became standard practice.[12] The first everyday-use computers were introduced in the 1980s and by 2009, 97% of classrooms had one or more computers. The education world knew when computers were released that something great was occurring with immediate learning capabilities.[13]

Technologies

Edtech can be used in a variety of different ways to improve the overall educational experience. This includes hardware and software systems. These technologies are used across all learning levels, from preschools, to K-12 schools, and in higher education. Edtech can be used for access to knowledge bases, alternate forms of knowledge representation (i.e. videos, images, audio, games) and support on how to do tasks.[14] Educational technology can foster collaboration between the teacher and student, as well as between students. EdTech has also allowed for the creation of engaging content through the use of augmented reality, videos, podcasts and ore. Research has shown that teachers can spark inquisitiveness in children and boost their curiosity which is tied to greater academic success.[15]

There is a wide variety of hardware technology used in classrooms. School districts use cameras, computers, printers, projectors, tablets, Smartboards and more.

Software

Social media has changed the communication, information, and also educational worlds. Social media is even being recognized as an effective form of instruction in certain scenarios, such as communicating directly with students or parents and creating forum-style groups to communicate with one another.[16] Many classrooms have used social media platforms as platforms for educational projects – seamlessly integrate the current digital world with their studies.[17]

Artificial intelligence is a growing solution across EdTech. Artificial intelligence can help personalize learning experiences to individual students through analyzing their previous learning, identify weaknesses, and offer help best suited to them.[18] Artifical intelligence is also being used in tutor and chatbot systems to help students received extra help outside of the classroom. According to a survey, teachers spend 31% of their time doing administrative work, planning lessons, and grading tests etc.[19] With the help of AI tools, much of the mundane tasks can be automated and teachers can focus on educating the students.

Google Classroom

Google classroom is a learning platform developed by Google for use within educational settings. It attempts simplify the process between teachers and students, largely in file sharing and collaboration. As of 2021, there were 150 million students and educators using Google Classroom.[20] Google classroom is able to do a plethora of tasks including but not limited to syncing with roster systems, grade entry, posting announcements, post quizzes, and creating copies of documents. Notably, Google Classroom interacts seamlessly with the rest of the Google Suite (Docs, Sheets, Slides, etc.) and allows educators to create individual copies of a document with just one click instead of doing it per person.[21] Google Classroom is free for schools, but there also is a paid version that includes videoconferencing features, advanced security measures, and premium support networks.

Kahoot!

Kahoot! is a game-based learning platform for a variety of uses in the classroom. Educators are able to create a variety of content, with the most mainstream being the quiz game function, which students join live from their individual devices, and includes music and a leaderboard. Kahoot! is free for educators to use, but there is also a premium paid version that includes extra features.

Clever

Clever is a EdTech platform that creates a single-sign-on portal for education, allowing students to log-in quickly to a variety of platforms. It is used in 50% of US schools every month.[22] Clever is a subsidiary of Kahoot! Schools can access Clever for free, while the companies whose apps are used via Clever pay to utilize the central platform.[23]

ClassDojo

ClassDojo is an EdTech company that focuses on communication between teachers, students, and families, as well as regulating student behavior. ClassDojo allows educators to instantly share photos, videos, and announcements with the Class group on the app, as well as individual message parents. ClassDojo is entirely free for use and is used in 9 out of 10 U.S. schools.[24]

Ethical Concerns

Educational technology often faces many barriers when schools try to implement it. There are cost barriers, resistance from teachers, and pushback from parents. There are also many ethical concerns that involve educational technology.[25]

Privacy

Google Chromebooks make up 60% of all laptops sold to K-12 schools, and the Google suite - including Google Classroom – are widely used across the nation in classrooms.[26] However, Google has admitted to scanning data and emails of students using the Google education systems in the classroom. Google faced a lawsuit for this in 2014 over concerns of US child-protection laws and potential violation of FERPA, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.[27] Google argues that the users have consented to their email being scanned as part of the user agreement. Some scholars argue that the interpretation of FERPA is much looser, as it is a decades old law that has not been updated to adequately define educational records in the digital era.[28] A report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation stated that large amounts of personal data on children are collected by EdTech devices being used in classrooms.[29] A 2018 FBI public service announcement stated that EdTech services can collect data including “biometric data, personally identifiable information, academic progress, behavioral, disciplinary and medical information, web browsing history, students’ geolocation, IP addresses, and classroom activities”.[30] The FBI reiterated the warning of student data being collected by edtech being a potential privacy and safety threats if used maliciously. In 2017, cyberattackers exploited school district IT systems by accessing student information and using it to “contact, extort, and threaten students with physical violence and release of their personal information”.[31]

Biometrics, a technology that recognizes physical and behavioral traits, is a growing technology in education systems. Currently, iris scan biometrics are being used in K-12 schools to “grant access to buildings and computer labs, track attendance, manage lunch payments, loan library materials and ensure students get on correct buses”.[32] A facial recognition system was installed at a St. Louis high school for security, where authorized people trigger the doors to automatically unlock and unrecognized faces are denied access. This also includes photos uploaded to the system as ‘undesirable faces’ such as sex offenders, disgruntled employees, etc.[33] A popular nutrition solutions company used in school lunchrooms has contracted a biometric fingerprinting system that will increase efficiency in cafeteria lineups.[34] Virginia Commonwealth University has implemented iris scan biometrics to access campus dining halls.[35] All of these biometrics tactics are stored in massive databases. The Fulton County School district in Georgia has explored facial recognition scans for use with younger children in lieu of log ins. However they have yet to implement the technology partially out of concern for data privacy.[36] Much of the data by schools is ‘directory’ information like names, addresses and medical records. Unfortunately, the chain of custody for the data is often unknown, particularly when stored by EdTech companies.[37] Critics of biometric use in schools warn that this is a form of data that can be breached and sold on the dark web. Biometrics, along with other forms of EdTech, has many unknowns of how long the data is stored by external services or how it may be used. Majority of districts also do not have full-time staff committed to protecting student privacy, which increases the risk that information will be compromised.[38] In 2014, Florida signed Senate Bill 188 into law which banned collecting biometrics of students in K-12 schools.[39]

With the rise of EdTech usage for digital instruction during the Covid-19 pandemic, universities have adapted an automated proctoring system for online exams. These systems attempt to replace the scrutiny of in-person proctoring that regulates rules and prevents cheating. Some of the systems allow live, virtual proctoring, while others rely on algorithms to report suspicious behavior. Some systems record the computer screen, others record the student through the camera, and some software record both. Automated proctoring has been heavily criticized by both students and teachers. Students have reported increased anxiety and a concern for their privacy and data rights.[40] Students have concerns of privacy breaches, citing prior cases of EdTech companies monetizjng and publishing student data. Universities and companies cite the strength of their encrypted software and reiterate that they do not sell data to third parties.[41] Students also feel a breach of privacy of the proctor entering their private space, whether that be the desktop of their computer or the background environment of their camera. Additionally, there is also no communication in real-time between the proctor and student. Critics of this practice argue that this is a level of “intrusion well beyond that experience in a physical classroom.[42]

Accessibility

According to Barrier Break, a Digital Accessibility Testing agency, many educational technology tools lack adequate accessibility functionalities.[43] Students with cognitive, visual, auditory, neurological and physical disabilities often face issues with edtech. The disadvantages thousands of students. Edtech tools often are not compliant with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) nor with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).[44] This issue was heightened by the Covid-19 pandemic with over a billion students shifting to remote learning, where students with disabilities faced hurdles with edtech.

Access

There are significant disparities in the access that students have to technology between affluent and lower income schools. A report shows that 52% of teachers in affluent school districts feel their students have technology necessary to complete homework, while only 3% of teachers in high-poverty districts felt that way.[45] This is directly related to the perpetuation of the digital divide. There is an increasing reliance on access to the Internet and WiFi for education, however only 58% of the world’s population has access to the internet.[46] This can stem from a variety of reasons including poor information and communication technology infrastructure, different government spending priorities, and Internet censorship. Part of the notion of the digital divide is that those who face current educational inequalities will be further disadvantaged regarding digital educational technologies. In 2013, the Los Angeles Unified School District signed a several million dollar contract with Apple, planning to give every student in the district an iPad. Critics were quick to address this deal, saying that the district would actually end up paying a much higher per capita price than retail. Additionally critics stated that the district infrastructure was inadequate for the influx of WiFi demands that the iPads would cause.[47]

There is also a large chain of command in school systems that partially informs how educational technology is used in classrooms. This causes a wide range of technology use not just across states, but within school districts, and even within individual schools. Administrators make allocation choices regard school and classroom resources.[48] However, some of their authority may also come from school district boards, or local city officials. Additionally, teachers make choices regarding how educational technology resources will be used in classrooms. This is part of the ongoing debate of regulating EdTech and allowing teachers instructional freedom.

Accuracy

Teachers and administrators have the responsibility of balancing student experiences with technology. There is a delicate balance of allowing the students to have freedom while remaining appropriate and instructional. Teachers also have the responsibility to ensure that the resources, often materials via the Internet, are accurate and also meeting guidelines set by schools, districts, and the state.[49]

Overstimulation

Some scholars say that use of Internet and social media in the classrooms – even for educationa purposes – makes students highly susceptible to distractions. The fear is that too much information coming too rapidly can overwhelm the brain and learning process.[50] In 2019 the World Health Organization released strict recommendations on limiting screen time, noting that excessive use can decrease the working memory of the brain.[51]

Capitalism

The collection and use of university data has led many higher education institutions to be exploited by EdTech companies that handle the outsourced services. The student data has become monetized, particularly in that businesses can use that data for ‘training’ machine learning systems.[52] There is a growing group of teacher ‘influencers’ who promote classroom technology via their social media. In exchange, teachers often receive gifts, often in the form of classroom technology. These gifts can range from small gifts to large gifts like $1,300 3-D printers.[53] Proponents of this methodology argue that the students are now gaining access to EdTech that the district or school could never afford on its own. Additionally, teachers spend an average of $600 out of pocket every year for classroom supplies, so supporters understand the appeal of embracing free classroom technology.[54] However, education experts warn that the incentives from companies may influence the teachers to adopt the promoted tools over other products or traditional approaches. Some opponents argue that even public school teachers accepting perks in exchange for product promotion could go against school district ethics policies or state laws regulating government employees, should the educators not be transparent.[55]

See Also

References

  1. ↑ Januszewski, Alan, and Michael Molenda. Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008, Google Books, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JO3Yc0UuK74C&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=educational+technology&ots=aBz1U2gMPs&sig=JBqrsEGgT_LimbeMenrm7n_luh0#v=onepage&q&f=false, Accessed 26 Jan. 2022.
  2. ↑ “Technology Can Close Achievement Gaps, Improve Learning.” Stanford Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, 19 Sept. 2014, https://ed.stanford.edu/news/technology-can-close-achievement-gaps-and-improve-learning-outcomes.
  3. ↑ Kurt, Serhat. “Planning for Educational Technology Integration.” Educational Technology, 19 Sept. 2017, https://educationaltechnology.net/planning-educational-technology-integration/.
  4. ↑ “Education Technology Market Size & Share Report, 2021-2028.” Education Technology Market Size & Share Report, 2021-2028, Apr. 2021, https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/education-technology-market
  5. ↑ Januszewski, Alan. Educational Technology: The Development of a Concept. Libraries Unlimited, 2001, Google Books, https://books.google.com/books?id=mlZsIIoOaSYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false, Accessed 27 Jan. 2022.
  6. ↑ Ely, Donald P. “The Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in Education--a Definition and a Glossary of Related Terms.” ERIC, Institution of Education Sciences, 30 Nov. 1962, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED016409.
  7. ↑ Ely, Donald P. “The Changing Role of the Audiovisual Process in Education--a Definition and a Glossary of Related Terms.” ERIC, Institution of Education Sciences, 30 Nov. 1962, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED016409.
  8. ↑ AECT task force on definition and terminology. “The Definition of Educational Technology. .” ERIC, Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 30 Nov. 1976, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED192759.
  9. ↑ Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
  10. ↑ “Apollo Audio Visual Model 16000 Overhead Projector, 2000 Lumens, 14 1/2 x 15 x 27.” Walmart.com, https://www.walmart.com/ip/APOLLO-Audio-Visual-Model-16000-Overhead-Projector-2000-Lumens-14-1-2-X-15-X-27/14930027.
  11. ↑ “The Evolution of Technology in the Classroom.” Purdue University Online, https://online.purdue.edu/blog/education/evolution-technology-classroom.
  12. ↑ “The Evolution of Technology in the Classroom.” Purdue University Online, https://online.purdue.edu/blog/education/evolution-technology-classroom.
  13. ↑ “The Evolution of Technology in the Classroom.” Purdue University Online, https://online.purdue.edu/blog/education/evolution-technology-classroom.
  14. ↑ “Educational Technology.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Feb. 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_technology.
  15. ↑ “How Important Is Technology in Education? Benefits, Challenges, and Impact on Students.” American University School of Education, American University, 25 June 2020, https://soeonline.american.edu/blog/technology-in-education.
  16. ↑ “The Evolution of Technology in the Classroom.” Purdue University Online, https://online.purdue.edu/blog/education/evolution-technology-classroom.
  17. ↑ Davis, Vicki. “A Guidebook for Social Media in the Classroom.” Edutopia, George Lucas Educational Foundation, 19 Feb. 2015, https://www.edutopia.org/blog/guidebook-social-media-in-classroom-vicki-davis.
  18. ↑ Karandish, David. “7 Benefits of AI in Education.” The Journal, 23 June 2021, https://thejournal.com/articles/2021/06/23/7-benefits-of-ai-in-education.aspx.
  19. ↑ Karandish, David. “7 Benefits of AI in Education.” The Journal, 23 June 2021, https://thejournal.com/articles/2021/06/23/7-benefits-of-ai-in-education.aspx.
  20. ↑ Lazare, Melanie. “A Peek at What's next for Google Classroom.” Google, Google, 17 Feb. 2021, https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/education/classroom-roadmap/
  21. ↑ Lynch, Matthew. “What Is Google Classroom?” The Tech Edvocate, 5 Aug. 2020, https://www.thetechedvocate.org/what-is-google-classroom/.]
  22. ↑ “About Clever, the Most Widely Used SSO Platform for K12 Education.” Clever, https://clever.com/about
  23. ↑ F, Tommy. “Clever Ed Tech: Breaking down Barriers.” Technology and Operations Management, 16 Nov. 2017, https://digital.hbs.edu/platform-rctom/submission/clever-ed-tech-breaking-down-barriers/
  24. ↑ ClassDojo. “Classdojo.” ClassDojo, https://www.classdojo.com/#LearnMore
  25. ↑ Kurt, Serhat. “Planning for Educational Technology Integration.” Educational Technology, 19 Sept. 2017, https://educationaltechnology.net/planning-educational-technology-integration/.
  26. ↑ Watters, Audrey. “The 100 Worst Ed-Tech Debacles of the Decade.” Hack Education, 31 Dec. 2019, http://hackeducation.com/2019/12/31/what-a-shitshow.
  27. ↑ “Google Faces Lawsuit over Email Scanning and Student Data.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 19 Mar. 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/19/google-lawsuit-email-scanning-student-data-apps-education.
  28. ↑ “Google Faces Lawsuit over Email Scanning and Student Data.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 19 Mar. 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/19/google-lawsuit-email-scanning-student-data-apps-education.
  29. ↑ “Educational Technology.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Feb. 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_technology.
  30. ↑ “Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3): Education Technologies: Data Collection and Unsecured Systems Could Pose Risks to Students.” Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) | Education Technologies: Data Collection and Unsecured Systems Could Pose Risks to Students, Federal Bureau of Investigation, https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2018/PSA180913
  31. ↑ “Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3): Education Technologies: Data Collection and Unsecured Systems Could Pose Risks to Students.” Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) | Education Technologies: Data Collection and Unsecured Systems Could Pose Risks to Students, Federal Bureau of Investigation, https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2018/PSA180913
  32. ↑ Jen A. Miller Twitter Jen A. Miller writes about technology for CIO.com. She's also a contributor to the New York Times, Washington Post and the Guardian. Her most recent book. “Biometrics in Schools to Yield Security Benefits and Privacy Concerns.” Technology Solutions That Drive Education, 10 May 2021, https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2019/05/biometrics-schools-yield-security-benefits-and-privacy-concerns
  33. ↑ counter source Counter, Peter. “Facial Recognition Deployed at St. Louis High School.” FindBiometrics, 9 Mar. 2015, https://findbiometrics.com/archive/facial-recognition-deployed-at-st-louis-high-school-23094/.
  34. ↑ Perala, Alex. “Kids to Scan Fingers For School Lunches.” FindBiometrics, 5 Mar. 2015, https://findbiometrics.com/archive/kids-to-scan-fingers-for-school-lunches-23056/.
  35. ↑ Perala, Alex. “Iris Biometrics To Keep Students Fed on Weekends.” FindBiometrics, 4 Aug. 2014, https://findbiometrics.com/archive/iris-biometrics-students-28043/.
  36. ↑ Jen A. Miller Twitter Jen A. Miller writes about technology for CIO.com. She's also a contributor to the New York Times, Washington Post and the Guardian. Her most recent book. “Biometrics in Schools to Yield Security Benefits and Privacy Concerns.” Technology Solutions That Drive Education, 10 May 2021, https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2019/05/biometrics-schools-yield-security-benefits-and-privacy-concerns
  37. ↑ Jen A. Miller Twitter Jen A. Miller writes about technology for CIO.com. She's also a contributor to the New York Times, Washington Post and the Guardian. Her most recent book. “Biometrics in Schools to Yield Security Benefits and Privacy Concerns.” Technology Solutions That Drive Education, 10 May 2021, https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2019/05/biometrics-schools-yield-security-benefits-and-privacy-concerns
  38. ↑ Rosa, Shawna De La. “Biometrics Can Make Schools Safer, but Privacy Concerns Persist.” K, 9 May 2019, https://www.k12dive.com/news/biometrics-can-make-schools-safer-but-privacy-concerns-persist/554420/
  39. ↑ “Biometrics Industry News Roundup: Florida Bans Biometrics In Schools.” FindBiometrics, 18 May 2014, https://findbiometrics.com/archive/biometrics-industry-news-roundup-florida-bans-biometrics-in-schools/.
  40. ↑ Zacharias, Kari, and Ketra Schmitt. “Questioning the Ethics of Online Proctoring.” University Affairs, 6 Dec. 2021, https://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/questioning-the-ethics-of-online-proctoring/.
  41. ↑ Zacharias, Kari, and Ketra Schmitt. “Questioning the Ethics of Online Proctoring.” University Affairs, 6 Dec. 2021, https://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/questioning-the-ethics-of-online-proctoring/.
  42. ↑ Zacharias, Kari, and Ketra Schmitt. “Questioning the Ethics of Online Proctoring.” University Affairs, 6 Dec. 2021, https://www.universityaffairs.ca/opinion/in-my-opinion/questioning-the-ethics-of-online-proctoring/.
  43. ↑ “EdTech Digital Accessibility.” BarrierBreak, 7 July 2021, https://www.barrierbreak.com/edtech-digital-accessibility/.
  44. ↑ “EdTech Digital Accessibility.” BarrierBreak, 7 July 2021, https://www.barrierbreak.com/edtech-digital-accessibility/.
  45. ↑ “Technology Can Close Achievement Gaps, Improve Learning.” Stanford Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, 19 Sept. 2014, https://ed.stanford.edu/news/technology-can-close-achievement-gaps-and-improve-learning-outcomes.
  46. ↑ Willems, Julie, et al. “The Increasing Significance of Digital Equity in Higher Education.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 35, no. 6, 2019, pp. 1–8., https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5996.
  47. ↑ Klein, Karin. “Opinion: L.A. Unified School District Doesn't Need More iPad Yes Men.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 23 May 2014, https://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-school-ipad-bond-20140523-story.html
  48. ↑ source Lucey, Thomas A., and Michael M. Grant. “Ethical Issues in Instructional Technology: An Exploratory Framework.” Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, vol. 3, no. 3, 2009, pp. 196–212., https://doi.org/10.1108/17504970910984871.
  49. ↑ source Lucey, Thomas A., and Michael M. Grant. “Ethical Issues in Instructional Technology: An Exploratory Framework.” Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, vol. 3, no. 3, 2009, pp. 196–212., https://doi.org/10.1108/17504970910984871.
  50. ↑ Sharon Begley On 2/27/11 at 10:00 AM EST, et al. “The Science of Making Decisions.” Newsweek, 15 Mar. 2011, https://www.newsweek.com/science-making-decisions-68627.
  51. ↑ Strauss, Valerie. “Covid-19 Brought New Technology into Elementary School. It's Time to Remove It.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 29 Nov. 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/11/29/remove-technology-from-elementary-school/
  52. ↑ Williamson, Ben, et al. “The Datafication of Teaching in Higher Education: Critical Issues and Perspectives.” Teaching in Higher Education, vol. 25, no. 4, 2020, pp. 351–365., https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1748811
  53. ↑ Singer, Natasha. “Silicon Valley Courts Brand-Name Teachers, Raising Ethics Issues.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Sept. 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/technology/silicon-valley-teachers-tech.html.
  54. ↑ Singer, Natasha. “Silicon Valley Courts Brand-Name Teachers, Raising Ethics Issues.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Sept. 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/technology/silicon-valley-teachers-tech.html.
  55. ↑ Singer, Natasha. “Silicon Valley Courts Brand-Name Teachers, Raising Ethics Issues.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Sept. 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/02/technology/silicon-valley-teachers-tech.html.
Retrieved from "http://si410wiki.sites.uofmhosting.net/index.php?title=Educational_Technology&oldid=108296"