Discuss At Least Three Of The Things We Have Learned ✓ Solved
1. Discuss at least three (3) of the things we have learned
1. Discuss at least three (3) of the things we have learned from the history of educational technology that can help us shape today's technology uses. Also, describe some of the educational movements facilitated by technological advancements during the Mobile Technologies, Social Media, and Open Access Era.
2. Suppose there is a student who has failed at learning mathematics skills and is very unmotivated. What strategy would advocate of directed instruction suggest? What would constructivists recommend? Describe why it's important for teachers to assess the technological resources of students and families.
3. Why is trust and risk-taking important to teacher leaders? Explain why it is important for teachers to seek out and understand school policies that relate to online activity.
4. Discuss some of the reasons that teachers choose to use software suites over non- computer tools. Discuss some of the common instructional integration strategies for data and analysis tools.
5. Compare and contrast while describing at least four selection criteria to consider when evaluating software for adoption to solve specific learning needs or knowledge objectives.
6. Choose one of the five affordances of web-based content resources that should be evaluated prior to use. Explain what the affordance is and how it can impact successful use of the resource with learners.
7. Discuss the research-based perspectives on the relationship between students' use of informal textese/textisms and students' learning and use of formal English.
Paper For Above Instructions
Introduction: The history of educational technology reveals recurring patterns: technology can catalyze powerful learning when paired with sound pedagogy, but it does not automatically transform outcomes. Foundational thinkers like Seymour Papert argued that tools must be integrated with meaningful, learner-centered goals to unlock deeper understanding (Papert, 1980). Later analyses by Lisa Cuban and Michael Warschauer emphasized that access to devices alone does not guarantee equity or improved practice; rather, effective integration depends on pedagogy, teacher expertise, and alignment with curricular aims (Cuban, 2001; Warschauer, 2004). These early insights continue to inform contemporary debates about how to chart progress in the Mobile Technologies, Social Media, and Open Access Era (Selwyn, 2016; Johnson, Adams, & Becker, 2014).
Historical learnings and their relevance: First, technology is not a neutral tool; its impact is mediated by pedagogical choices and organizational structures. Papert’s early advocacy for constructionist learning highlighted the need for authentic tasks and reflective practice when children interact with computational tools (Papert, 1980). Second, access alone does not guarantee meaningful learning; equitable outcomes require deliberate design, teacher support, and ongoing professional development (Warschauer, 2004). Third, the integration of technology should be guided by a clear theoretical frame that connects content, pedagogy, and technology (TPACK framework), so educators can plan lessons that leverage digital tools to enhance understanding rather than merely replace traditional methods (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). These tenets remain essential as schools navigate 1:1 devices, cloud-based collaboration, and open educational resources (OER) in the current era (Selwyn, 2016; Johnson, Adams, & Becker, 2014).
Movements in the Mobile Technologies, Social Media, and Open Access Era: The rise of mobile learning, social media-enabled collaboration, and open access resources has reshaped expectations for learner agency and teacher roles. The Horizon Report and subsequent reviews show that learners increasingly engage with networks, share ideas across platforms, and access a wide array of learning materials beyond the traditional classroom (Johnson, Adams, & Becker, 2014). This era also foregrounds concerns about digital equity, data privacy, and the need for teachers to cultivate digital literacy and responsible online practices (Selwyn, 2016). Educational movements—from formal computer-assisted instruction to community-driven OER initiatives—demonstrate that technology can broaden participation when used to support inquiry, collaboration, and reflective practice rather than passive consumption (Mayer, 2009).
Directed instruction versus constructivist approaches in mathematics learning: When addressing a student who is unmotivated in mathematics, direct instruction offers explicit modeling, guided practice, and clear feedback to build foundational skills and confidence (Rosenshine, 2012). This approach is particularly effective for procedural fluency and prerequisite concepts, providing a scaffold that helps students regain momentum. In contrast, constructivist approaches emphasize problem-centered tasks, student exploration, and social negotiation of meaning, which can foster intrinsic motivation and deeper conceptual understanding. An effective plan often blends direct instruction for essential procedures with well-designed, authentic problems that require students to apply math concepts in meaningful contexts (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Additionally, assessing the technological resources available to students and families ensures that digital tools are accessible and usable—reducing barriers that might otherwise impede engagement (Selwyn, 2016).
Strategic considerations for unmotivated learners: For math, a blended approach might involve short, explicit mini-lessons followed by hands-on, collaborative tasks that connect math to real-world farming or daily routines—aligning with the student’s interests. Visual representations, interactive simulations, and adaptive practice can improve engagement and precision in skill development (Mayer, 2009). Technology can support feedback-rich environments where students receive immediate cues on errors and opportunities to correct misconceptions, reinforcing a growth mindset (Rosenshine, 2012). The teacher’s role is to curate or co-create learning experiences that balance structure with autonomy, ensuring learners perceive mathematics as accessible and relevant (Selwyn, 2016).
Leading with trust and risk-taking in education: Teacher leaders benefit from a willingness to experiment with new practices, share discoveries with colleagues, and navigate online policy considerations. Trust enables risk-taking, which in turn fosters innovation and continuous improvement within schools. Leaders should model responsible digital citizenship and guide colleagues through policy interpretation, data governance, and safe online collaboration. Understanding school policies related to online activity helps protect students and educators while enabling responsible experimentation with digital tools (Selwyn, 2016). This alignment between leadership, policy, and practice supports sustainable transformation rather than episodic, isolated technology use (Johnson, Adams, & Becker, 2014).
Software suites and data-analytic tools in teaching: Teachers increasingly favor integrated software suites that streamline lesson planning, assessment, and data analysis over disparate tools. The rationale includes consistency of user interfaces, coherence of data reporting, and the ability to scale practices across classrooms. Effective use hinges on alignment with pedagogical goals and the capacity to present information in multimodal formats that support varied learner needs (Mayer, 2009). Frameworks like TPACK help educators analyze how technology intersects with pedagogy and content, ensuring that digital resources meaningfully augment learning rather than overpower it (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). When selecting software for analysis tasks, teachers should prioritize tools with accessible interfaces, interoperability with existing systems, evidence of effectiveness, and robust privacy controls (Selwyn, 2016).
Criteria for evaluating software adoption: At least four criteria should guide selection: (a) alignment with learning objectives and curricular standards; (b) usability and accessibility for diverse learners; (c) evidence of effectiveness from credible research or case studies; and (d) scalability, interoperability, and sustainability within the school context (Johnson, Adams, & Becker, 2014; Selwyn, 2016). Additional considerations include data privacy, professional support, and the capacity for differentiation to address individual learner needs (Mayer, 2009). A well-chosen tool(s) should enable teachers to monitor progress, adjust instruction, and provide timely feedback while preserving student autonomy and engagement (Rosenshine, 2012).
Affordances of web-based content resources: Selecting a single affordance to evaluate prior to use helps ensure effective learning outcomes. One critical affordance is credibility/authority—users should be able to assess the trustworthiness of online content to avoid misinformation and ill-informed conclusions. Credibility affects learner confidence, engagement, and the overall quality of the knowledge constructed online. Educational designers should teach students strategies for source evaluation, including author credentials, publication venue, evidence provided, and consistency with other reputable sources (Selwyn, 2016). Such evaluation supports informed, responsible use of web-based resources and curbs the propagation of low-quality or biased information that could undermine learning goals (Stockwell, 2010).
Texting and formal English: The relationship between informal textese and formal writing remains debated. Some analyses suggest that frequent engagement with informal digital communication can co-exist with strong formal writing if learners are guided to transfer skills and recognize audience conventions. Others warn that heavy dependence on textese may influence spelling, syntax, and register in inappropriate contexts. A balanced view held in the literature emphasizes metacognitive awareness and purposeful practice that distinguishes between casual and academic language, enabling learners to switch registers as needed (Stockwell, 2010; Rosenshine, 2012). This perspective underscores the importance of explicit writing instruction, feedback, and opportunities to practice formal writing in meaningful genres, supported by digital tools that annotate and scaffold editing processes (Mayer, 2009).
Conclusion: The seven prompts presented here reflect enduring questions in the field of educational technology: how to integrate powerful tools with sound pedagogy; how to design for equity and access; how to lead with trust while navigating policy; and how to evaluate software and web resources for impact on learning. By drawing on foundational and contemporary scholarship—from Papert’s constructionist ideas to Selwyn’s critical perspective on technology in education, and from Rosenshine’s instructional principles to the TPCK framework—educators can craft learning experiences that leverage digital tools to enhance understanding, motivation, and achievement. The ongoing dialogue about informal language and formal writing continues to inform strategies for supporting bilingual and multilingual learners as they navigate multiple modes of communication in and beyond school (Stockwell, 2010).