From WikEd

Contents 1 Wiki info 2 Definition 2.1 Introduction 3 Educational Challenges & Opportunities 3.1 Impacts 3.1.1 Learning Theories and Application 3.1.2 Teachers & Administrators 3.1.3 Educational Institutions Training Teachers 3.1.4 Students & Parents 3.2 Opportunities 3.2.1 Multiple Forms of Intelligence 3.2.1.1 Multimedia Literacy 3.2.1.2 Collaborative Learning 3.2.2 Community Learning Centers 3.2.2.1 Students 3.2.2.2 Teachers 3.2.2.3 Facilities and Technology 3.2.3 Studio Based Learning Environments 3.2.3.1 Studio-based Learning 3.2.4 Virtual Communities 3.2.4.1 Facilities and their Use 3.3 Challenges 3.3.1 Teacher Resistance 3.3.2 Digital Divide 3.3.3 Students Technology Training 3.3.4 NCLB Standards and Benchmarks 4 Digital Technologies and Their Uses 4.1 Types of Technology 4.2 Technology Applications 4.3 Effects of Technology on the Learner 4.4 Effects of Technology on the Educator 5 Wider Social and Cultural Changes 5.1 Globalization 6 Conclusion 7 References 8 Note

Wiki info

Title: New Learning and Education

Authors:

Jessica Delaney Conner

Mark Emmons

Cindy Howe

Tamelia Jackson

Lori Lee

Paul McGuire

Kristin Hinrichs Perry

Sarah Shepherd

Christopher Stevens

Elizabeth Voss

Ruth Whittington

Lee Wilkinson

Instructors: Nicholas C. Burbules & Jane H. Couture

Class: EPS 415: Ethical & Policy Issues in Information Technologies

Institution: University of Illinois Urbana Champaign

Definition

New Learning: A life-long student centered approach enabling access to learning opportunities without physical boundaries, delivered when, where and as needed without hierarchical restriction and centered on meaning making constructed through collaboration, experience, and interaction with the world. New Learning refers to the learning environment. Students are no longer attached to the classroom. New Learning allows the student to experience informal and formal learning in an experiential way. New Learning is decentralized, connected, and individualized. New technology doesn't necessarily require New Learning, but New Learning does require the use of new technology.

Introduction

A basic tenet of New Learning is that the opportunity for learning is ubiquitous. The promise of technology has encouraged its spread. However, the domain we call “New Learning” is not new. The concept of the laboratory school or the call for imaginative uses of technology were tenets of a reform for education proposed by John Dewey, see also John Dewey on Education at the beginning of the 20th century. What has changed is the relative ease with which incorporating communication and computer technologies has enabled learning to occur without boundaries of time or space. The learning environment is available to individuals on demand and not limited by physical structures, expert presence or schedules mandating presence at predefined times. The student has the opportunity to choose what, when and where learning occurs. This flexibility offers both opportunities and challenges as we look toward a changed view of what a traditional education experience may look like.

Schools have a structure that is relatively unchanged since the inception of public education. While some changes have and continue to occur, such as a slow but steady move toward incorporating technology into the classroom; formal public education continues to be location specific and time constrained. Education is delivered at the school during specific times of the day and year.

In 1994, the U.S. Department of education undertook a study to support and sustain the dissemination of successful innovations in American education. The study, Educational Reforms and Students at Risk: A review of the Current State of the Art, discussed five changes to existing practices as described below, many of which represent the core beliefs that form the concept of New Learning:

To create a challenging, nonstigmatizing learning environment that meets student needs, policymakers have proposed significant changes in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and organizational strategies. Specific proposals include ^[1]

• Changes in curriculum--e.g., focus on real-world experiences to attract student interest; integration of academic and vocational skills so that students are well-prepared for both college and the job market.
• Changes in instruction--e.g., adults as mentors or advocates; provision of race-sex role models; cooperative learning; peer tutors and mentors; one-on-one tutoring; using computer programs to develop higher order thinking skills rather than simply as basic skill drills.
• Changes in assessment--e.g., "alternative" or "authentic" assessments; assessment and recognition of incremental student progress.
• Changes in school organization--e.g., creation of smaller academic units within large schools, or "schools-within-schools;" team teaching.
• Closer connections with work or college--e.g., university outreach to students at risk; school-to-work apprenticeship programs.

To a certain extent, the practices providing world experience, mentoring, peer tutors, authentic assessments, small schools or outreach programs suggested by the 1994 report have been adopted or attempted with varying degrees of success. Yet the broader issue, particularly as it relates to the topic of New Learning, is the spread of technology and the impact that it has on the traditional school structure and the way students go about learning. Since 1994, the spread of technology into schools has spread significantly.

---

Educational Challenges & Opportunities

Impacts

Learning Theories and Application

The social environment is changing due to the Ubiquitous Technologies, to include such things as web based social networking. As this social environment changes, learning needs of the student changes, and instructional methods must keep up. “Learning needs and theories that describe learning principles and processes should be reflective of underlying social environments.” ^[2] Traditional learning theory in most classrooms is grounded in behaviorism, cognitivism or constructivism. George Siemens writes “these theories were developed in a time when learning was not impacted through technology.” These theories no longer are sufficient to account for how students learn. Below is a new model that expounds upon John Dewey’s taxonomy of learning, and takes into account the changing technological environment in which we live and learn.

Representational Toolkit Model

Developed by Levin, Stuve and Jacobson, 1999 this model compares the learner as a craftsman with a “range of different tools, and the craftsman has the skills to use each tool and the knowledge of when to use each tool in a sequence to accomplish a task.”^[3].

Implications of the Learning Environment

• Should be designed to help learners acquire multiple representations of the domain are.
• Should help learners acquire skill at switching between one representation and another.
• Should help learners acquire meta-knowledge about these representations.

A New Taxonomy for New Learning and Applications

Bruce and Levin^[3] (1997; 2003) have offered a new taxonomy of uses of technology for learning. They have used John Dewey’s (1943) taxonomy of inquiry, communication, construction, and expression and put it to use with technology. This framework can help educators design a learning environments following the Representational Toolkit Model.

• Media for Inquiry- Using and creating websites such as webquests that facilitate the inquiry process.
• Media for Communication- Using technologies to communicate such as Classroom Management Systems, Second Life, Elluminate, Wikis, Blogs or any kind of collaborative learning taking place on the web.
• Media for Construction- Second Life is a virtual world where construction of objects and space can take place. The learner gets to build, create, and learn from constructing in the virtual world.
• Media for Expression- Using editing applications for self expression. This can entail using creative programs like Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, PaintshopPro, Apple Garageband, IMovie, Adobe Premier, etc. There are a plethora of sites and programs that allow the learner to express themselves by creating artwork, digital imagery, movies, sound, and animation.

Teachers & Administrators

In New Learning, teachers are facilitators of knowledge. Their role is to help engage students to inquire, create, express, and communicate. Teachers are no longer the ‘sage on the stage.’ They are helpful assistants and supporters of knowledge and skill acquisition. The table below written by Kathee Terry (1996) describes the changing role of teachers.

The Teacher Was/Is	The Teacher's Role is Becoming More
A deliverer of information, a sage on stage	A facilitator of learning; a guide on the side
A teacher of the textbook	A teacher whose lessons are driven by reality and up-to-date information resources
A coordinator of group work	An information manager, building collaborative teams
A ruler in a benevolent dictatorship	A knowledge navigator, celebrating and developing patterns for life-long learning
An educational island	A member of a learning community composed of technology assistant

For teachers to effectively foster a New Learning approach, administrators need to offer support through quality teacher training and managing a budget for technology integration. Administrators need to hire qualified technology coordinators, send their teachers to technology conferences, and support learning communities in the school.

Educational Institutions Training Teachers

Teaching is becoming one of the most challenging professions in our society where knowledge is expanding rapidly and modern technologies are demanding teachers to learn how to use these technologies in their teaching. ^[4]

A 2000 Survey found that two third of teachers felt that they were not at all or somewhat prepared to use technology in their teaching. Teachers do not know how to incorporate technology in the classroom according to the National Center of Education Statistics Report. The conceptual framework of teacher education programs have changed as organizations such as the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education recognizes that educators must be educated and comfortable with technology themselves in order to implement its usage in the classroom. Of the six standards set for new teachers in 2000, Standard one addresses technology. “It signifies a significant shift in the structure of the USA educational system toward adoption of best practices to support the rapid development of an educational system supporting an information-based society.” ^[5]

New Learning encompasses all agents; teachers, students and schools have to be equipped. The mere existence of technology does not equate a New Learning environment. Computers alone don’t teach children. ^[6] Teachers must be prepared to integrate technology comfortably and understand the importance of creating critical thinkers by using various forms of multimedia in the classroom that embodies the New Learning Environment.

Currently the undergraduate teacher education programs at many major universities, including Harvard University, do not require courses of technology integration, or effective use of technology in teaching. Some teacher education programs do require only a single course in which prospective teacher would learn about using technology as an instructional tool such as: “Technological Applications in Education”, or “Media & Technology in Education”. According to a 1995 report published by the United States Department of Education, "technology is an important enabler for classes organized around complex, authentic tasks" and when "used in support of challenging projects, [technology] can contribute to students' sense ... that they are using real tools for real purposes." ^[7] To this date, not much change has been made in university teacher education programs to promote the integration of technology.

As new concepts of learning have evolved, teachers are expected to facilitate learning and make it meaningful to individual learners rather than just to provide knowledge and skills. Modern developments of innovative technologies have provided new possibilities to teaching professions, but at the same time have placed more demands on teachers to learn how to use these new technologies in their teaching ^[8]. Even though many teachers report that they have not had adequate training to prepare themselves to use technology effectively in teaching and learning, there seem to be several efforts around the world in which countries are effectively using technology to train teachers, and/or are training teachers to use technology as tools for enhancing teaching and learning. ^[4]

Singapore’s National Institute of Education (NIE) began such a program as far back as 1998. In this program, student teachers must take Basic ICT skill workshops which cover word processing, PowerPoint, Internet literacy, and other technical skills. A 26-hour elective course covers the design and production of computer-based instruction. A 30-hour ICT foundation course is entitled “Instructional Technology” and covers: “learning, thinking and the effective use of instructional technologies in the classroom; instructional planning models; selecting, creating, evaluating, and integrating instructional technologies and resource materials; promoting creativity and complex thinking through ICT project work activities; and organizing and managing instructional activities with appropriate ICT resources in the classroom.” Besides taking these courses, NIE students pursuing a Diploma in Education must have five weeks of practicum during the first year of their pre-service training and ten weeks during the second year. The trainee is expected to use ICT while teaching, depending on the school’s ICT infrastructure. Student teachers in this program reported that the 30 hours of instruction was not enough time to gain proficiency in ICT-pedagogy integration, and some wanted more ICT-pedagogy integration in the practicum. ^[4]

To train teachers how to effectively use these new technologies, university teacher education programs will have to undergo fundamental changes. A national vision of education must be established, to facilitate fundamental change in teacher training programs.

Students & Parents

As New Learning develops as the best practice and is adopted by k-12 schools, the changes mentioned earlier in this article, will necessitate a shift in the nature of Parent and Student Responsibilities as related to education.

Setting Goals

Parents and students must meet together with an academic counselor at least once per year to discuss academic progress, revise long term goals, set academic goals for the upcoming year, and select appropriate courses. Parents and students must meet with course instructors prior to enrollment in each course to discuss objectives of the course and how the course objectives coordinate with the personal goals of the student.

Time on Task (attendance)

Enrollment in a public or private school may not mean that daily physical attendance is mandatory. Though attendance may not be mandatory, regular attention to academics through study, research, and communication with the learning community will be the key to academic success. Students will have the flexibility to attend school and learn at home or from other physical locations. Students must complete assigned activities each day or each week as agreed upon with the course facilitator. In addition, parents and students are required to meet with the course facilitator as scheduled to discuss progress and review student portfolios.

Record Keeping

Students must complete a personal online journal for each course, noting communication with the learning community and other personal efforts and accomplishments as they are related to the stated educational objectives. If the student is completing academic activities outside of the physical environment of the learning center, parents will supervise those activities, and verify the statements written by the student in the personal online journal. This is necessary to keep track of the student's progress and to verify that the student was engaged in appropriate learning activities. During meetings with the instructor, all student work will be reviewed, journal entries will be verified, and any additional assessments will be given. The instructor will document student proficiency and learning on the corresponding learning record which will serve as the primary documentation of student achievement and be used as a basis for determining satisfactory academic progress.

Student Portfolios

One of the primary ways students will exhibit evidence of learning is through portfolios. Students and parents will select original student work samples for each course to include in a student portfolio. Work samples will be collected by the instructor to be included in the student’s final portfolio. The portfolio is another means of documenting student achievement and determining satisfactory academic progress.

Opportunities

Larry Cuban^[9] (1992) describes the two types of reform efforts:

"School reforms over the last century and a half can be divided into incremental and fundamental changes. Incremental reforms are those that aim to improve the existing structures of schooling. The premise behind incremental reforms is that basic institutional structures are sound but need tinkering to remove defects and make their operations more effective and efficient. In real estate, for example, a fixer-upper is a house in which improvements need to be made but the essential structure (foundation, walls, roof, etc.) is sound. Making improvements is engaging in incremental changes.

Fundamental reforms, on the other hand, are those that aim to transform and alter permanently those very same institutional structures. The premise behind fundamental reforms is that basic structures are irremediably flawed and need a complete overhaul, not renovations. Again, using the house analogy, another fixer-upper might be in such awful shape structurally (the roof leaks badly, the foundation is tilted, termites have destroyed the framing, etc.) that the house has to be bulldozed and the lot scraped clean in order to build a new home." (p. 228)

We are not arguing either for systemic change or incremental reforms. We present below, a discussion of proposed reforms and alternative methods that surround the issue of New Learning. Some reforms suggest a complete overhaul of the existing public school model; others address smaller, yet significant alterations to the current state of public education in America.

• Multiple Forms of Intelligence

• Mentoring Partnerships

• Real World Experience

• Community Learning Centers

• Studio Based Learning Environments

• Virtual Communities

• Facilities and Their Use

Multiple Forms of Intelligence

With the internet, “we suddenly have a medium that honors multiple forms of intelligence-abstract, textual, visual, musical, social, and kinesthetic. As educators, we now have a chance to construct a medium that enables all young people to become engaged in their ideal way of learning. The Web affords the match we need between a medium and how a particular person learns.” (Brown 2002)

Multimedia Literacy

Literacy is evolving. Brown (11) describes a need to expand the definition of literacy from a traditional print based definition into a definition that encompasses “screen languages from film.” With children growing up digital, prior definitions of the print-based world now require effective communication using “images, text, sound, movement, sequence, and interactivity” (Brown 12).

It is necessary to have the ability to "read" multimedia texts and to feel comfortable with new, multiple-media genres. The new literacy, beyond text and image, is one of information navigation. The real literacy of tomorrow entails the ability to be your own personal reference librarian-to know how to navigate through confusing, complex information spaces and feel comfortable doing so. "Navigation" may well be the main form of literacy for the 21st century.” (Brown 2002)

Collaborative Learning

Using technology, the time and place designated for learning, can be more flexible, allowing students who are unable to be physically present to participate in group discussions, conduct virtual experiments, gather information, and make presentations. Collaborative learning groups can be formed between students in different parts of the world. These virtual communities of niche interests spread around the world as they interweave with local, face-to-face groups, in school or outside. A new, powerful fabric for learning starts to emerge, drawing strength from the local and the global. A cross-pollination of ideas happens as local students, participating in different virtual communities, carry ideas back and forth between those communities and their local ones. (Brown 2002)

Community Learning Centers

The idea of public schools as a primary focal point for education is part of the social fabric of our culture. Public education’s charter is to provide the necessary skills to create productive adults. The traditional school environment is locally based and operational 9 months of the year. Its structure was developed to serve students with responsibilities in an agriculturally based culture that no longer exists for the majority of school aged children. John Coleman^[10], in an oft quoted discussion describes students during this stage in America’s development as “information poor and responsibility rich for youth.” Media was localized and often inaccessible so schools performed the very important task of disseminating information and content. But today, “society is information rich and responsibility poor for children.” Yet, as Coleman argues, schools seem stuck in an agrarian time warp that requires systemic change.

One proposed structural change is to redevelop the traditional secondary school into community learning centers. The structure is student centered, program rich, provides a locus for both formal and informal education for the community year round and is accessible electronically 24/7. In one variation, Wayne Jennings^[11], argues for a dramatic change to the structure of the traditional school that would address “staffing, instructional methods, learning, curriculum, allocation of resources, technology, parental roles, training, governance, outcomes, assessment, and partnerships.” (Jennings 4) Almost every aspect of the traditional school structure would be touched. But importantly, the driver behind the plan is a student-centered approach that is at the core of New Learning.

Students

Learning experiences are “student centered, experiential, life centered and brain based.” (Jennings 6) Students are participants in their learning, owning the decisions over what to learn. Program choice is the domain of student and parent, not a school mandated series of requirements or prerequisites. The reference to “brain-based” learning is simply providing the opportunities to engage in inquiry, activities involving direct involvement and learning that is immediately applicable to the world. In this view, the student is actively involved in his or her learning and becomes a partner with other members of the learning community including, administrators, teachers, staff and other students.

Teachers

The learning center approach changes the role of teacher from a conveyor of knowledge, or central to the learning experience, to being a facilitator of knowledge acquisition. The teacher collaborates with the student and as an adviser becomes team leader, guide and assists the student in planning his or her learning progression. This change in the role of the teacher does not happen without effort. Jennings (12) highlights that professional development for teachers enabling such a revised role must change dramatically and be increased substantially. His recommendation is to provide 20 to 30 days a year to accomplish the level of training required by the learning center approach. Furthermore, the current teacher role becomes a shared activity, extended to principally paraprofessionals, but also parents, other students and the community. In this structure, the number of teacher professionals is reduced and the number of paraprofessional is increased toward a 1:1 ratio with teachers. It is the cost savings generated from fewer certified staff that allows for an increase in paraprofessionals, as well as extended professional development. Teacher-student ratios would increase dramatically, but the mundane tasks associated with current teacher responsibilities are reduced in an environment where the student is responsible or paraprofessionals manage behavior or monitor activity.

Facilities and Technology

The traditional, classroom based facility requires revision under the learning center approach. Less emphasis is placed on classrooms where 30 desks are aligned facing forward toward a blackboard. Described by Jennings (18) as doing spaces, the physical plant of the traditional school requires reconfiguration to facilitate small and large group collaboration, labs, workshops, discovery, craft and media centers that are conducive to the student centered approach of a community learning center.

Design and structure of learning environments

The New Learning environment is one that combines traditional and new methods of instruction while integrating technology. Schools recognize that in order for students to be successful in the Information Age students must learn collaboratively and become problem solvers. Students must be able to acquire and transfer information in a multitude of ways. Students in a New Learning environment are expected to become more than recipients of information but engaged learners in which they exchange ideas and critical thinking skills. Schools are dissolving the boundaries in which learning can occur by installing technology into classrooms and encouraging its usage.

Traditional Learning Environments	New Learning Environments
Teacher-centered instruction	Student-centered learning
Single sense stimulation	Multisensory stimulation
Single path progression	Multipath progression
Single media	Multimedia
Isolated work	Collaborative work
Information delivery	Information Exchange
Passive learning	Active/exploratory/inquiry-based learning
Factual, knowledge-based learning	Critical thinking and informed decision-making
Reactive response	Proactive/planned action
Isolated, artificial context	Authentic, real-world context

(obtained from the National Educational Technology Standards for Students website)^[12]

Design of school environment

New Learning encompasses more than the technology integrated in the classroom. It is important to realize the actual physical environment must also reflect a New Learning environment. Currently, school architecture is not conducive and does not encourage a collaborative approach. The one room school house model has been implemented since the conception of the first schoolhouse in the 19th century. With the transition from the Industrial Age to the Information Age, the only modification to the classroom over hundreds of years has been multiple rooms within one large facility. While, learning has evolved the traditional school structure has not. “Although educational theorists and practitioners have been actively exploring and applying new information about teaching and learning during the past many decades, the physical designs of learning environments that house these new ideas have remained largely unchanged.” ^[13] Additionally, these obsolete buildings are not structured to handle the new technologies to be installed and the furniture is outdated. Issues with wiring and installing wireless internet capabilities to placing computers on top of any available flat surfaces, are all issues that need to be addressed. “The use of IT alone has dramatically changed the learning environment. The installation of equipment such as ports for connections to the school network, the Internet or libraries and the introduction of new facilities for pupils with special education needs, such as induction loop aids, requires that structural changes be made to buildings and that health and safety regulations be revised.” ^[14] Teachers have made adaptive changes by putting traditional desks together to form collaborative groups. However, new schools are still being built on the traditional school architectural model and the schools continue to furnish classrooms with singular desks and outdated furniture that is not ergonomically appropriate for the student learner and not optimal for a New Learning environment. Chairs should be adjustable for students to have optimal viewing of the computer screens. Computers should be placed on appropriate computer stations with appropriate work surface heights and wrist rests.

Studio Based Learning Environments

In his discussion of New Learning Environments for the 21st Century^[15], John Seely Brown describes a re-conceptualization of parts of the educational system rather than a fundamental structural revision.

Studio-based Learning

Brown (3) describes a reorganization of the classroom into a studio model akin to the collaborative workspaces found in architectural firms. Students work at tables with other students on a shared problem. There is no lecture or teacher centered dialog. Students work at problems, simulations or experiments pertinent to the course. Teachers or assistants move amongst the tables offering suggestions or announcing interesting discoveries to the rest of the class. All work is public and subject to public critique. Much like the working world, students participate together in solutions. Skills are picked up from one another during practice. And as Brown (3) describes, “…they witness the wide variety of ways to approach a design problem in the first place and how they start to appreciate and learn from the struggles, the missteps, and the successes of their peers, as well as how they start to learn the social and intellectual practices that enable them as an ensemble to become a reflective practicum.” The learning is activity based and student-centered. Brown (5) characterizes this structural change as moving from “learning about” to “learning to be.” Activity based learning in this context is situated and actionable. He draws reference to the theories of Lave and Dewey regarding situated learning and productive inquiry respectively. But Brown is also quick to point out that the revision is not completely successful without adopting new teaching practices. Similar to the discussion regarding Community Learning Centers, the studio based learning environment was successful when the teachers were developed from “sages on stage to mentors in the studio.” (Brown 5)

Virtual Communities

The social environment is changing due to the Ubiquitous Technologies, to include such things as web based social networking. As this social environment changes, learning needs of the student changes, and instructional methods must keep up. “Learning needs and theories that describe learning principles and processes should be reflective of underlying social environments.” (Siemens 2004) With the Web, these virtual communities of niche interests spread around the world as they interweave with local, face-to-face groups, in school or outside. A new, powerful fabric for learning starts to emerge, drawing strength from the local and the global. A cross-pollination of ideas happens as local students, participating in different virtual communities, carry ideas back and forth between those communities and their local ones. (Brown 2002)

Facilities and their Use

Technology also plays a key role. Facilities are wired and the intelligence that exists within the school, such as courseware, libraries and applications are accessible by the community. The result is that learning is shared and not bounded by the traditional limitation of a school operating during limited hours for only part of a year. Using technology, hands on experiments which are costly, dangerous, and cumbersome to set-up and which require the use of specialized space, can be done in a virtual laboratory. Students who are not physically present can easily make-up the lab experiment or participate from home. Set-up and clean-up would be instantaneous, allowing more time for processing information learned, and more time for additional experimentation.

Challenges

Teacher Resistance

Responding to the question: “do you find high school teachers to be receptive to change,” Cheryl King^[16] states, “Change can be more difficult for high school teachers for a number of reasons. At the high school level, many teachers have held their jobs for decades. They were certified at a time when standards of practice were different from what they are now. Experienced teachers need support in changing their practice and their views about how high school students learn best, as well as deepening their knowledge so that they can teach in more rigorous ways. Sometimes, these more experienced faculty are the most resistant to change. They have seen reforms come and go with little impact and they’ve developed a skeptical “this too shall pass” attitude toward many teaching and learning innovations. New teachers are generally more receptive to new ideas for improving their knowledge and practice and engaging their students. Unfortunately, in a climate of staff reductions, these new teachers are the first to be laid off and thus the return on the investment in their professional development is not realized.”

Barbara Monroe ^[17] describes four factors that are significant for teachers to understand in order to enable the use of technology for New Learning. These are:

1. a non-traditional management style
2. constructivist pedagogy
3. project-based curriculum design
4. democratized power relationship with students

Monroe states that for technologies to be used successfully, students must be allowed to proceed at their own pace and make their own choices in fulfilling an assignment (219). Furthermore, rather than use technology to support existing pedagogies, teachers must learn to work on the “premise that students are in charge of their learning and own knowledge making.”(220) The New Learning structure also requires that students collaborate. Finally, a fluid classroom assumes that the traditional teacher dominated relationship is revised and students are empowered to “ask their own questions and offering support or refutation for others’ viewpoints…” Unfortunately, there is a difficulty in revising the classroom environment. Teacher resistance to change is often the result of an institutional structure that is not conducive to change. Monroe (221-223) describes six common constraints:

1. Time Schedule
2. NCLB adversely affecting experimental pedagogies/focus on teaching to test
3. Limitation of Computers
4. Acceptable Use Policies (AUP) preventing personal use of email and other networked solutions.
5. Lack of time to experiment
6. Electronic skills that would facilitate integration of New Learning technologies go unrecognized (narrowly focusing on academic skills).

Teacher preparation, even as recast under the National Education Technology Plan, does not highlight skills necessary for asynchronous or synchronous collaborative technologies; its focus is on data and the technologies that generally reinforce a teacher directed pedagogy. Moreover, where training is evident, programs lack specific training in using the technologies. Monroe suggests that “teacher preparation programs need to spend more time on the pedagogy—which is still being invented.” (225)

Union Work Rules

When asked how can schools and teachers be prompted to change, Cheryl King ^[18] responds by saying, after 32 years in this business, I believe that we will not achieve comprehensive reform without the political will—at all levels—to do so. All stakeholders (including labor associations) must demand that all kids have equal access to high-quality education. We must hold everyone accountable for that. Government and teacher unions need to join hands and say, “let’s change the way we’re educating our high school students.” These changes will require alliances on multiple fronts, going far beyond the classroom and schoolhouse doors. We need, for example, to engage policymakers at all levels of government because legislation provides a key lever for change. I’m encouraged to see that the National Governors Association convened on a single topic of focus: high schools. This is a tremendous, critical step in the right direction

Digital Divide

In March 2004, CoSN and Grunwald Associates conducted an online survey with 455 school district decision makers for technology, such as superintendents, assistant superintendents, directors of instructional technology, chief technology officers, and administrators of management information systems. This survey of key decision makers in K-12 public schools reveals large and growing disparities in funding for school technology. These disturbing disparities signal a widening digital divide between the technology haves and have-nots in 21st century. Stagnant or declining technology budgets in many school districts threaten the real progress that schools have made over the past decade to improve their technology infrastructure, access and effectiveness for administrators, teachers and students. ^[19]

This digital divide, is not just an issue for publicly funded schools. Individual student access to technology can be a barrier to equal opportunities for learning. According to “A Nation Online,” the last major federal study on the subject published in 2004, Caucasian and Asian-American households were more likely to be online than African-American households, which in turn were more likely to be wired than Latino households. And while overall Web use rose for each demographic group—about 60 percent of U.S. households were online, up from less than 20 percent in 1997—the hierarchy of access has remained essentially the same for the last decade. Of the income divide, the report revealed that more than 80 percent of households earning more than $70,000 per year are online, compared to barely 30 percent of households earning less than $15,000 a year. Nearly nine out of 10 households in which someone has attained graduate-level education were online. In contrast, less than one in five households, 16 percent of people without a high school diploma, had internet access. ^[20] If the funding issue for school technology is not resolved and the digital divide restricts access to technology for some students, then visions of educational reform where students are enabled to become more independent learners may have to be put on hold.

Students Technology Training

According to the U.S. Department of Education ^[21], it is uncertain what the level of technical proficiency is for students. It reported that “more students may have their technology proficiency evaluated than state statistics suggest.” (23) But, based on data (see table below), it is clear that access to computers and the internet in schools is almost universal, and use of computers at home is growing for all school-aged children. A provision of NCLB included an effort to assure that children were trained in the use of technology. Currently, 13 states report that districts assessed student progress toward technology proficiency, while more than a third of the states do not test technical proficiency.

Proficiency Standards

Under NCLB, student technology standards ^[22] were promulgated based on the belief that achieving technology literacy would enable teachers to use them as a framework for planning technology-based activities and lessons. Student standards also provide a basis for assessing technology competency. The skills emphasized are in six broad categories:

• Basic operations and concepts
• Social, ethical, and human issues
• Student use of technology productivity tools
• Student use of technology communication tools
• Student use of technology research tools
• Student use of technology for solving problems and making informed decisions (ISTE, 2000)

Because the standards are so broad, there is hope that schools will interpret them as flexible enough to include the full-range of technologies that students will face upon entering the work-force. If, as has been discussed in other areas of this page, they are interpreted narrowly, focusing only on those technologies that support traditional teaching and learning methods, then the frameworks necessary to expand New Learning concepts may take longer to implement.

State of Technology in the Public School Landscape

As of 2004 ^[23], there were 14,383 public school districts with 95,726 primary and secondary schools. Over 54 million students attend public and private primary and secondary institutions. The number of teachers employed by these institutions was approximately 4.4 million ^[24]. Public schools with access to the internet were projected in 2003^[25] to represent approximately 82,000 institutions. The number of computers for instructional use was projected at more than 11,000, with just over 10,000 of those computers being connected to the internet.

Computer use at home in 1997 ^[26] for users over 3 years of age exceeded 81 million. By 2003 the number of users grew to more than 156 million. The number of school age children using computers at home is shown below.

	1997		2003
	Number of Home Computer Users (000)	Percent of persons using computers at home	Number of Home Computer Users (000)	Percent of persons using computers at home
Total age 3 & over	81,013	31.7	156,744	56.9
Age 3-14	18,774	39.1	30,772	62.6
Age 15-19	8,395	43.1	14,656	72.2
Age 20-24	4,975	28.5	11,848	59.6

Based on the data compiled by the National Center for Education Statistics described above, the extension of technology into the school is almost universal. But, it is important to keep in mind that the data above does not describe how or when the computers are used, by whom or if they are even on. A statistic that is compelling, particularly in relationship to New Learning, is the growth of access and usage in the home. Based on U.S. Census Bureau Data, approximately 60% of primary and secondary school children report using computers at home and those of secondary school age exceed 70%.

While schools have moved to enhance their capacity to provide connectedness, they are no longer the only source for information, learning or skill development. It is the extension of technology that presents both opportunities for public school systems, as well as challenges.

The NCLB act, pushed a standards-based education. In this information age, benchmarks and standards must not only include how to use technology, how to access information, how to organize information, how to discern the relevance and validity of information, but also, how to communicate, network, and collaborate with a community of learners in different ways. Students will have to be trained how to use the technology needed to take advantage of this New Learning.

NCLB Standards and Benchmarks

Much has been said about No Child Left Behind (NCLB), both positive and negative. This discussion will not enter that fray, but will look at the Act from the perspective of what it may mean for advancing New Learning initiatives. In particular, the creation and implementation of learning standards, common assessments, and reporting and analysis mechanisms present a considerable challenge to student-centered learning.

Education is a local enterprise. The framers of the U.S. Constitution decided that government would be shared between the central government and smaller governmental units including states and municipalities. The concept of Federalism is a sharing of powers, and education was the domain of local government. However, as early as 1787^[27], as part of the Northwest Ordinance, the Federal government began to intervene in this local domain, primarily through grants and monies. Subsequent initiatives have focused on providing monies, research and mandating regulations for social purposes and combating inequalities in the delivery of public education. Unfortunately, though well-meaning, the new initiatives point away from an individually deterministic approach toward a much broader intrusion into education at the federal level.

A combination of factors are beginning to form that may reduce the opportunity for expansion of New Learning initiatives. In 2001, with passage of NCLB, the federal government set the stage for the development of nationally based criteria for assessing learning outcomes and proficiency standards. Importantly, one provision of NCLB-school choice, allowing parents and their students to seek alternative schools does not necessarily provide the opportunity for a better education, nor for an individually directed education based on interest. Finally, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) exam, also referred to as the “Nation's Report Card,” is a nationally administered proficiency test that reflects a federal interest in benchmarking performance on learning achievement, based on federally developed standards.

NCLB

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The Act incorporated several new federally mandated initiatives in the areas of testing and accountability, among other programs. Passed in 2002, the purpose of the law was to ensure that each child in America meets the learning standards in the state where he or she lives. The goals included minimum proficiency standards for reading and mathematics to be achieved by 2014 and qualification standards for teachers to be attained by 2006. An over arching goal was that all students will graduate from high school.

In order to meet these goals, the law requires annual testing of all students, reporting and analysis of student achievement results, definition and implementation of an adequate yearly progress (AYP) benchmark and support for students not meeting AYP. The result of the Act was to mandate the creation of a standards and assessment system used to account for achieving the goal of universal proficiency. As of May 2007^[28], 20 states had met NCLB requirements with another five expected to achieve compliance. According to the report, “this is a vital piece of NCLB. Without very clear and challenging content standards, and tests that are aligned to those content standards, we cannot measure the success we are having in helping our nation’s children reach grade-level proficiency and learn the skills they will need to succeed later in life.”

Unfortunately for New Learning initiatives, the creation of standards and common assessments is forcing many schools to reduce elective programs. Monies otherwise made available for student choice programs are being redirected to activities that support meeting AYP.

Alternative School Choice

One of the remedies provided under NCLB was to offer school choice to parents and students attending schools that had not met standards mandated under NCLB.

“Children are eligible for school choice when the Title I school they attend has not made adequate yearly progress in improving student achievement--- as defined by the state--for two consecutive years or longer and is therefore identified as needing improvement, corrective action or restructuring. Any child attending such a school must be offered the option of transferring to a public school in the district--including a public charter school--not identified for school improvement, unless such an option is prohibited by state law.”^[29]

The problem with alternative school choice is that often the schools meeting AYP do so as a result of a focus on minimum standards, rather than educational opportunity. Although not specifically mandated by NCLB, Charter Schools are supported by the Act and have increased in number since the Act’s implementation. Charter schools may provide some relief and opportunity for New Learning initiatives.

Charter Schools

Charter schools have greater freedom from regulations in exchange for higher accountability standards. “Charter schools are public schools which are largely free to innovate, and often provide more effective programs and choice to undeserved groups of students. The result is schools that are designed to meet students' unique interests (e.g., vocational training, arts) and special talents or needs. Many of these programs have clearly increased academic achievement. Parents and teachers at charter schools develop programs for their students. In some, the community becomes the classroom, using museums and libraries to enrich the offerings.” ^[30] (See Community Learning Centers)

NAEP

While used historically as a benchmark tool, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as a nationally administered assessment has gained in importance under NCLB. “Assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and the arts. ^[31]”

NAEP does not provide individual student scores or scores for schools. It does measure results regarding subject-matter achievement, instructional experiences, and school environment for populations of students in 4th, 8th and 12th grade and groups within those populations. The results are based on a sample of student populations.

While the intent of measuring performance is a good one, the application of results for the purpose of refining and standardizing curriculum does not bode well for the creation and implementation of programs offering choice. These elements, NCLB and a push toward standards and the increasing ability to deliver, analyze and record performance on a common nationally administered exam, set the stage for more rigidity in schooling. Although, flexibility to seek alternative educational venues may offer some relief as these [Charter] schools gain traction.

Rapidly Changing Information Base

It is a challenge to stay current with a rapidly changing information base when what is true one day may be found to be untrue the next.

Other sources consulted: United States Department of Education (1995, August). Technology supports for project-based learning. Technology and Education Reform: Technical Research Report Retrieved May 16, 1999, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/SER/Technology/ch8.html.

---

Digital Technologies and Their Uses

Types of Technology

Communication devices

Definition: “A communications device is any machine that assists data transmission. For example, modems, cables, and ports are all communications devices. Communications software refers to programs that make it possible to transmit data.” ^[32]

There are many communication devices available to consumers or technically savvy individuals. The computer is the most widely used and well known communication device. As it pertains to New Learning, educators and students are constantly finding new ways of communication primarily through the use of the computers but also in many handheld devices which are discussed below. As far back as 1968, it was well known that the computer as a “machine” would be what people would use as opposed to the common face-to-face interaction. The computer has broken those “physical boundaries” and taken learning out of the classroom and through technology has fostered the growth of New Learning. To understand the history of the computer as a communication device, Licklider and Taylor wrote an article that describes its first revelations as the new tool for interaction: http://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/SRC/publications/taylor/licklider-taylor.pdf

The technologies of communication devices are also readily available for those with certain learning and physical disabilities, i.e. the deaf and blind (TTY, TDD, PAC Mate, FSTTY, FaceToFace™) or with disabilities such as autism, literacy problems, or dyslexia. ^[33]

New technologies/devices for communication are rapidly expanding. A typical cell phone now can be used to help others out with the sharing of knowledge. “Cellphedia is the 1st Ubiquitous Social Encyclopedia: Cellphedia is a Mobile Social Software (MoSoSo) that promotes the sharing of knowledge. It allows users to send and receive encyclopedia-type inquiries between specific, pre-defined groups of users, through Text messaging.” ^[34].

Simple tool applications

The following are common applications used for collaboration in and out of the classroom environment: Google Notebook, Google Reader, Google Earth, Google Talk, podcasting, Backpack, Gliffy, Picnik, Mindomo, Spresent, wiki, blogs, Moodle, Blackboard, Facebook, Myspace. These are just a few tools that educators and learners as using to interact with each other and advance the concept of New Learning. There are a plethora of applications that can be used for New Learning many of which depend upon the competency level of the user.

Online repositories

Definition: “an online locus for collecting, preserving, and disseminating -- in digital form -- the intellectual output of an institution, particularly a research institution. For a university, this would include materials such as research journal articles, before (preprints) and after (postprints) undergoing peer review, and digital versions of theses and dissertations, but it might also include other digital assets generated by normal academic life, such as administrative documents, course notes, or learning objects.” ^[35]

Lynch (2003) states, “institutional repository is a set of services that a university offers to the members of its community for the management and dissemination of digital materials created by the institution and its community members. It is most essentially an organizational commitment to the stewardship of these digital materials, including long-term preservation where appropriate, as well as organization and access or distribution.” ^[36]

These repositories are allowing learners and educators greater access to scholarly works. It is also allowing those the capability for their works, ideas, and research to reach a broader audience. Among the faculty of universities and other institutions, issues on sharing and plagiarism as well as the reasons for not utilizing the repositories have become a source of contention. See the following link for information about a debate on Cornell University's Installation of DSpace: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march07/davis/03davis.html

Hand-held PCs

Definition: “A Handheld PC, or H/PC for short, is a Microsoft term for a computer built around a form factor which is smaller than any standard laptop computer. It is sometimes referred to as a Palmtop. A true Handheld PC runs on a Platform Release of the Microsoft Windows CE operating system, with the term also covering Windows CE devices released by the broader commercial market.” ^[37]

“Originally marketed as a personal organizer for on-the-go business executives and ardent technophiles, personal digital assistants (PDAs) have evolved into handheld computing devices and have become one of the most ubiquitous electronic devices in both the consumer and business worlds”.^[38] Outside the business setting, these devices are especially changing the way educators are viewing new ways of learning in and out of the classroom.

Given the immense amount of literature on hand-held PCs, the term has become somewhat ambiguous. They are sometimes referred to as personal handheld devices, personal digital assistants (PDAs) or by their brand name. In today’s terms, they are usually considered anything from a Palm Pilot and Blackberry to an iPhone. As it relates to the classroom, more educators are looking toward their use to advance learning and knowledge as well as cut costs. “While every student cannot be provided with a $1,000 desktop computer, it is not outside the realm of possibility to imagine a time when every student can be provided with his or her own $100 personal handheld computing device. These affordable devices could overcome the access barrier that is limiting the impact of technology on teaching and learning. Time will tell the story”. ^[39]

See the following link for an entire list of hand-held PCs: http://www.hpcfactor.com/hardware/devices/

CCTV

Definition: According to the National Institute for Justice, “In its simplest form, a closed-circuit television (CCTV) system consists of a video camera, a monitor, and a recorder. Complex, multicamera systems allow images to be viewed sequentially, simultaneously, or on several monitors at once, depending upon the system. CCTV systems can record in black and white or color, and camera positions can be either fixed or varied by remote control to focus on activity in different locations. Zoom lenses allow either a broad view of the monitored area or selected close-ups. In addition, advances in technology enable CCTV cameras to be smaller, to use night vision, and to transmit images over the Internet”. ^[40]

According to the National Institute for Justice, from 1980 to 2000 there was a six fold increase in sales of CCTV which is a $690 million increase. ^[41]

According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), many agencies in the United States and other nations are applying CCTV technology to police operations including equipping vehicles with video recorders, monitoring public areas, and recording booking and other police procedures. ^[42]

According to the IACP in a 2001 executive brief, in police operations the use of CCTV as a new digital technology has helped improvement in the following areas:

• fewer frivolous lawsuits because defendants are unable to contradict taped evidence
• fewer officers necessary to conduct surveillance of public areas
• protection against claims of abuse or coercion during interrogation procedures
• reduced court time for officers because defendants are unwilling to dispute charges when faced with taped evidence. ^[43]

CCTV technology has also helped in the tracking down and apprehension of criminals who have committed serious offenses from kidnapping and murder to arson and rape. It is used to monitor bullying on campuses or in school buses. It is being used extensively in London and now major cities within the United States to deter would be terrorists and/or capture acts of terrorism.

When it comes to law enforcement there are some problems with this new technology as the IACP describes below:

• Lack of enthusiasm for the use of CCTV by police officers, who may be reluctant to be taped while performing their duties
• Maintenance of the equipment
• Poor design, not adaptable to the operating environment
• Poor tape quality that makes identification difficult
• Lack of effective zoom capabilities
• Excessive time required to conduct evaluations of recorded material
• Difficulty in concealing CCTV equipment
• Equipment not rugged enough for the conditions in which it has to operate
• High cost of purchasing and upgrading equipment
• Limited area the cameras cover when in a fixed state ^[44]

With the increase of CCTV technology, learners in corporate as well as government industries will have to take an added role in understanding the uses and benefits of CCTV. The complexities between an individual’s privacy and the public security will pose both ethical and legal issues. Just like new software, communication devices, websites, and other handheld devices topple the barriers of privacy, and so will CCTV when it comes to others discreetly watching our every move. The challenge will be to use CCTV as tool for learning and increasing knowledge as opposed to its primary use as a tool for security.

Technology Applications

Distance learning

Definition: There are numerous definitions about what distance learning is and the fact that it has been around for decades and as indicated by some for over 100 years there are many different definitions. It is a key factor in New Learning and by nature continues to evolve and thus presents opportunities for learning newer applications and ways to go about learning the latest in distance learning. Most educators, students, and future students now consider distance learning to be solely an online function since most courses and instruction can be done via the World Wide Web. Doug Valentine of the University of Oklahoma dedicates an entire section to the many definitions of Distance learning in an entry he wrote for the Online Journal of the Distance Learning Administration that can be found at the following link: http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/fall53/valentine53.html

The following are at least two definitions that Valentine references:

• “a planned teaching/learning experience that uses a wide spectrum of technologies to reach learners at a distance and is designed to encourage learner interaction and certification of learning” ^[45]
• “the term distance learning has been applied to many instructional methods: however, its primary distinction is that the teacher and the learner are separate in space and possibly time” ^[46]

There are many factors to consider and much planning involved when it comes to online distance learning and its relation to the concept of New Learning. Levy (2003) provides six factors to consider when planning online distance learning for higher educational programs, “Vision and Plans, Curriculum, Staff Training and Support, Student Services, Student Training and Support, and Copyright and Intellectual Property.” ^[47]

Distance learning is not without its disadvantages to educators and faculty. The faculty experience increased responsibilities and time constraints as they explore new technologies and have to find the time to learn these new programs and applications as well as implement them into their curriculum. “Faculty, like most professionals, may be reluctant to attempt new ventures, especially when they must continue their ongoing responsibilities and are not receiving any additional compensation for their new responsibilities. Thus, if a college wants to increase the number of faculty who teach distance courses, they should contemplate rewarding these faculty for the first time they are willing to teach a distance course and they should be given release time for training." ^[48]

There are nine years worth of journal articles dedicated to the topic of Distance Learning which can be found at the Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration (OJDLA) or http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/

Digital divide

Definition: Gaps in the level of technology that is available to households throughout the world. The term became prominent in the mid 1990’s when the Clinton Administration sought to address this issue and focused more attention on it in a 1998 report titled "Falling Through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide.” In 1999, the Secretary of Commerce hosted a Digital Divide Summit which “focused on expanding access to information technologies for underserved populations and areas.” ^[49]

With the advent of the digital divide, the issue as it relates to New Learning is whether bridging the digital gap will increase or foster New Learning? Once seen as the access to technology broken up between the “haves” and the “have nots,” the issue may be more complex than previously thought. Will educators need to address other divides that might be related to the digital divide like socioeconomic status, level of competency and literacy in the new found technology, access to health care, and other issues of education known as the “achievement gap”? In a recent article by Jonathan Fanton (2007) of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch he states, “More than 90 percent of those between the ages of 12 and 17 are online. The number of high-speed Internet connections, necessary for the richest content experience, is growing by 40 percent annually. Participation in the all-digital virtual world known as Second Life has risen dramatically — from 500,000 to nearly 5 million people in two years.” ^[50] With the increase of children growing up “digital” where will the New Learning concept need to focus from preventing a further divide?

Solutions to the problem of the digital divide could include closing the gaps previously mentioned or seeking out private grant programs. As Salpeter (2006) states, “there continue to be foundations that focus on this issue as well as on ways of using digital technology to help low-income and minority students eradicate the achievement gap. Organizations like the Beaumont Foundation, the Bell South Foundation, and the Gates Foundation, among others, grant money to schools to help bridge the digital divide.” ^[51]

Additonally as Burbules, N., Callister, T., & Taaffe, C. (2006) state, “In the end, social policy needs to think in more networked ways, not just in the context of technology access: about the dependence for the success of public policies on community organizations and social networks that themselves be the product (or the mere instrument) of public policies; about the complex and sometimes frustrating dynamics between good intentions and unintended consequences; and about the growing interdependence of local, national, and global dynamics.” ^[52]

As one can see, the digital divide is not only hard to define in this age of increased technology but it is also an issue that will be difficult to address in the context of New Learning. One could say that with the increased availability to technology and its applications one may need to look at the most accessible types of technology that may help bridge that gap.

For more information on the Digital Divide and Access, see the related wiki: http://wik.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/DigitalDivide-415

Effects of Technology on the Learner

Access to more information

New digital technologies can increase access to information. The availability of interactive and non-sequential information greatly affects the degree of information that can be accessed. Traditional approaches to learning are linear. ^[53] Books are to be read from beginning to end; most textbooks are written in a sequential manner and should be tackled from beginning to end. TV shows are to be watched from beginning to end, as well as instructional videos. Learners who use new digital technologies often take on more than one task at once and can participate in many activities at the same time. In the time that an individual is searching for a particular subject in the library (traditional sense), another individual who is using new digital technologies could have found 20 web pages on the same subject. Although, the learners that use the new digital technologies to find the web pages must make sure that the information that they obtain is credible.

Increased overall knowledge

Knowledge of learners is increased with new digital technologies by keeping the learner interested and engaged. If the learner is engrossed in what they are learning, it makes learning fun and customized.^[54] New digital technologies keep the learner in control of what they are learning. For example, when using a Computer Aided Instruction (CAI) package the learner can go through the information at his/her own pace. When a concept is clear, he/she can skip past that material, or they can take more time on material that they do not completely understand.

Learners can also access information such as world news and other general information via the Web. If a topic interests a learner, they can generally get on the Internet and use a search engine to access the information.

ICT literacy - Enhanced critical thought, analysis capability, and problem solving

Nationally and internationally, education leaders think that students need to know Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Literacy because it helps students to develop learning skills that they will need to use in their lifetime. These skills will enable them to think critically, analyze information, communicate, collaborate, and problem-solve. ICT Literacy also emphasizes the essential role that technology plays in realizing these learning skills in today's knowledge-based society (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 2005). The six areas critical to students’ success in the workplace and representative of ICT Literacy skills are to communicate effective, analyze and interpret data, understand computational modeling, manage and prioritize tasks, engage in problem solving, and to ensure security and safety, ^[55] Each of these arenas is described below:

• Communicate Effectively: Students must have a range of skills to express themselves not only through paper and pencil, but also audio, video, animation, design software as well as a host of new environments (e-mail, Web sites, message boards, blogs, streaming media, etc.).
• Analyze and Interpret Data: Students must have the ability to crunch, compare, and choose among the glut of data now available Web-based and other electronic formats.
• Understand Computational Modeling: Students must posses an understanding of the power, limitations, and underlying assumptions of various data representation systems, such as computational models and simulations, which are increasingly driving a wide-range of disciplines.
• Manage and Prioritize Tasks: Students must be able to mange the multi-tasking, selection, and prioritizing across technology applications that allow them to move fluidly among teams, assignments and communities of practice.
• Engage in Problem Solving: Students must have an understanding of how to apply what they know and can do to new situations.
• Ensure Security and Safety: Students must know and use strategies to acknowledge, identify, and negotiate 21st century risks.

ICT Literacy encompasses many different aspects. The learner is expected to grasp each of the six areas and master them. Learners should not only possess the skills of the “traditional student,” (such as good reading, writing, and arithmetic skills) but they should also know how to use the technology well and effectively and also how to communicate within that environment. With the well-flourishing “dot com” era, learners need to know how to use the technology that is available to them.

More capacity to synthesize, interpret, theorize, communicate, and create new cultural and historical knowledge

“New digital technologies and media are transforming how we teach and learn. They are transforming our classrooms from spaces of delivery to spaces of active inquiry and authorship. New digital media are empowering students to become researchers, storytellers, historians, oral historians, and cultural theorists in their own right. Whether constructing their own life stories of others, the digital format transforms students’ capacity to synthesize, interpret, theorize, and create new cultural and historical knowledge. In this way, digital formats potentially democratize learning and produce critical subjects and authors.” ^[56] Students can use technology to research history and also to display what they learned. Digital histories can be created by using popular programs such as PowerPoint to showcase and incorporate different kinds of primary evidence whether it is newspaper clippings, photo albums, film clips, songs, or oral histories.

More personal learning management

New technologies can offer learners the opportunity to manage their learning over long periods of time. Personal information can be preserved and organized in digital form over a lifetime. This would be hard to do with pen and paper, as the files would build up and take up a lot of space. With new digital technologies, time and space can be saved by placing information on a disk or a hard drive.

More collaboration with other learners out of classroom environment (worldwide)

New digital technologies also give the learner the opportunity to engage in worldwide collaboration. ^[57] The Internet allows parties to trade information quickly. This can be done through asynchronous or synchronous chat. Learners can develop a very detailed project or paper without ever meeting their counterparts in person!

New media has helped create a culture for learning, where the learner enjoys enhanced interactivity and connections with others. ^[58] The Tapscott article describes a situation from California State University in Northridge. Thirty-three students in a social studies course in the fall of 1996 were randomly divided into two groups. One of the groups was taught in a traditional classroom while the other was taught virtually on the Web. Fundamentally, the teaching model wasn’t changed; texts, lectures, and exams were standardized across the two groups. However, the Web-class scored, on average, 20 percent higher than the traditional class. The Web class seemed to be more interested in the class work and they had more contact with one another. They felt that they understood the material better and that they had more flexibility in how they learned. ^[59] This is a direct affect of how the students were able to interact and connect with each other, and it had a positive impact on their learning.

Fewer physical barriers to information (simulated labs, virtual worlds that mirror real locations, and online classrooms and colleges)

New technologies can also form part of the environment that arbitrates learning with a computer-based learning environment (for example, by providing simulated labs, virtual worlds that mirror real locations, and online classrooms and colleges). ^[60] These simulated labs, virtual worlds, and online classrooms and colleges provide environments for engaging with teachers and other students. Computer-based learning environments may encourage learners who would typically not participate in a “traditional” classroom setting to participate since there is some degree of anonymity. Although other people may know the learner’s name, they may not know their face.

However, there are some downfalls to computer-based learning. When in an online synchronous chat in a “classroom,” students may feel that the content is moving too quickly and they cannot keep up. They may feel as if their comments and opinions are being ignored. They may not type as fast as the other learners in the class. The strengths and weaknesses of computer-based learning must be taken into account when deciding to use the technology or not.

Effects of Technology on the Educator

Technology and the Social Roles of the Educator

The social role of the teacher has changed because of technology. The internet has changed the dynamics of a traditional classroom into one that with the use of interactive audio and video computer mediated communication, classes can be taught around the world either at a set time or a non-set time. “Email allows teachers from across the country to share ideas, lesson plans, and activities. Listservs and other like types of communication allows for different ways to teach the subjects.” ^[61] Technology in essence has changed how an educator communicates between the student to teacher, teacher to teacher, teacher to administrator and teacher to parents.

Practice inclusion

In terms of inclusion, one of the major concerns of technology is the issue of those who have access and those who do not. In order to achieve the goals of No Child Left Behind initiative, all students will need to have access to technology. This is particularly of concern in those poor school districts where there is no funding to support new technology. The digital divide between the Retrieved economically wealthy and the disadvantaged is of crucial concern because it prohibits many students the opportunity to move forward with the advancement of technologies and benefit from improved learning.

Ongoing professional development

Professional development for educators should be an essential part of implementing a technology plan. Lack of a professional development plan has been the main obstacle for fully developing and integrating technology into a school curriculum. Teachers will need to meet state and national competency standards. “For teachers to implement technology in the classroom to increase engaged learning and improve achievement among their students, a well-planned professional development program for technology use is essential. Such a program gives teachers the skills they need to incorporate the strengths of technology into their lesson planning rather than merely to add technology to the way they have always done things. Effective professional development requires careful planning, job-embedded and hands-on activities directly linked to the curriculum, plenty of follow-up, built-in evaluation using several assessment techniques, adequate time, sustained funding, and the willingness of educators to take on new and expanded roles." ^[62]

Professional development aids in the ability of teachers to stay current with issues in education and to improve their response to cultural changes.

Continuing, formative assessments

As educators adopt effective strategies that infuse lessons with appropriate technology, assessments are necessary to evaluate teacher technology efficiency. This evaluation should examine:

• Whether they demonstrate sound understanding of technology operations and concepts.
• Ability to plan and design effective learning environments and experiences supported by technology.
• Ability to implement curriculum plans that include methods and strategies for applying technology to maximize student learning.
• Whether they have applied technology to facilitate a variety of effective assessment and evaluation strategies.
• That teachers use technology to examine their productivity and professional practice.
• Understanding of the legal, social and ethical issues surrounding the use of technology. ^[63]

Education reform

Reform requires that teachers learn new roles and ways of teaching which calls for teachers to become literate in appropriate technologies for teaching and learning. With emerging academic standards and the growing diversity issues in the classroom, educators are faced with continually providing meaningful learning to diverse student populations.

Technology serves the goals of education reform by contributing to:

• Student learning through involvement with authentic, challenging tasks
• New roles for students and teachers
• Professionalization of teachers
• Creation of a culture that supports learning both in the classroom and beyond the school walls ^[64]

Other sources consulted: Bridgforth, E & Cradler, J. Recent Research on the Effects of Technology on Teaching and Learning. Retrieved July 20, 2007. http://www.wested.org/techpolicy/research.html

Johnston, M. Students Speak Out on Benefits of Technology. Retrieved July 20, 2007. http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/technology_education/60247/.

Critical Issue: Providing Professional Development for Effective Technology Use. Retrieved July 20, 2007. http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/technology_education/60247/.

---

Wider Social and Cultural Changes

Globalization

Globalization and New Learning

Education is continually shaped by various processes, including globalization. Globalization determines that the world is interconnected and interdependent. Globalization itself is driven by many separate processes. “Information Technology (IT) is a driving factor in the process of globalization. Improvements in the early 1990s in computer hardware, software, and telecommunications have caused widespread improvements in access to information and economic potential.^[65] Within the changes of globalization and technology, education has been forced to change and adapt to meet the new demands of these processes. New Learning is a response to the continual dynamic changes, challenges, and opportunities of globalization. To understand how New Learning is affected by globalization, one must examine how technology is affected by globalization. Additionally, one must look at how New Learning is itself an educational method that is out of necessity, a response to overall social, political, and economic changes of globalization.

The changes involved in globalization have effects on a number of things. Culture has been deeply affected by globalization. Globally, we are able to see and learn about a wider variety of cultures.In learning and adapting various cultures, we may also become more homogeneous. Globalization has made the world more connected and this includes a more connected workplace, an easier to access media, and easier, faster ways to travel. With this great global use of technology we see an increase in lifelong learners, those that don’t end their schooling when they graduate secondary school.

New employment trends

Educators have the primary obligation to prepare students to actively participate in a world outside of the school environment. For most students, a huge aspect of success outside of school is the promise of acquiring a job that pertains to their interests. Today, in order to secure a job, students must have skills that allow them to compete in a global job market. “Young people are increasingly unable to get a foothold in the global labor market, and a work force that is rapidly growing older is finding less job security, according to an analysis of employment trends. Stiff competition under increased globalization had led to reduced job security, a reduction in job-related benefits, and a diminished role for organized labor.” ^[66] Employers around the world are no longer geographically limited when looking for qualified job applicants. Therefore, upon graduation students must be prepared to be globally competitive. Education at every level must address this fact. Furthermore, students with varying levels of education need to be aware of this fact. Globalization does not simply affect skilled and highly educated workers. “Globalization has thrown the least-skilled into head-on competition with people willing to work for pennies on the dollar.”^[67]

Global trends

Globalization is not limited to affecting the job market. Social and political relationships are also influenced. Students must be able to contend with this. Globalization has expanded access to technological structures as the Internet and mass media. Ideas of culture and what it means to participate within culture are dramatically changing with the introduction of new technologies that are increasingly available globally across various socioeconomic classes. For example, global relationship and networking sites such as MySpace make it very easy to communicate cross-culturally. Even more basic is the fact that email messages can be sent virtually anywhere in the world within seconds. Educators and students cannot afford to expect that it will be possible to engage in a strictly Americanized system. Furthermore, the relationship between globalization and politics must also be considered.

New Learning and Globalization affects the conceptual framework of school by shifting roles of the learner and educator which changes the classroom environment and what is defined as learning. Computer and educational technology integration is offering new opportunities that challenges the traditional classroom setting in terms of communication by creating a student-centered collaborative environment. By incorporating technology, students can move beyond the physical space of the classroom and learn in cyber environments. The New Learning environment is putting learning into practice to meet the demands of the Information Age. Classrooms are becoming blended environments by incorporating traditional classroom methods with New Learning methods in which students are learning in a multidimensional approach.

Global competition

Clearly globalization has determined that the present and future state of global affairs will be both interdependent and interconnected. At one time politics was considered to be limited to national systems. However, national systems have now transcended to be connected through global economic and social trends. ”Under globalization, politics can take place above the state through political integration schemes such as the European Union and through intergovernmental organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. Political activity can also transcend national borders through global movements and NGOs. Civil society organizations act globally by forming alliances with organizations in other countries, using global communications systems, and lobbying international organizations and other actors directly, instead of working through their national governments.”^[68] Clearly competition on all levels now exists at a global level. Methods of teaching and learning must be adjusted to meet the changing social demands wrought by globalization.

New learning as a response to globalization

As stated, a primary obligation of education must be to prepare students to compete in a global society. Globalization itself has been driven extensively by the development of new technologies. These information technology-induced changes in the structure and performance of the U.S. economy have had significant consequences for the American workforce. The incorporation of new digital technologies into all sectors of the U.S. economy has created substantial new demand for expertise in software development, the management of computer and information systems, technical support services, and the manufacturing of high-tech gear”^[65] . Students must be prepared to participate in a job market and society dominated by the use of technology.

By its nature, New Learning forces students to actively engage in active and experiential learning with the use of technology being a key component. If students are continually being equipped to engage with technology in informal learning circumstances from a young age, skills necessary to be competitive within a globalized society will be developed over time. Schools that utilize students to be comfortable with non-traditional methods of learning technology will not only have an edge in the globally competitive job market, but in the continually growing globally connected social and political world.

Other sources consulted: Coombes, Andrea. “Workers of the World: Six Strategies to stay competitive in a global labor market.” Market Watch 22 February 2007. 19 July 2007. <http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid=%7B482D09CD-93E6-4A6F-BE89-E7312B6B8B0C%7D&dist=rss&print=true&dist=printTop>

---

Conclusion

New Learning asks us to look at the education system in a new light. It asks us not to be tied to the model that we have used for the past several hundred years. It asks us to think about our goals and purpose in education, and it asks us to think about what possibilities emerging technologies can provide to learners. It is an approach to learning that focuses on individual students and their personal quests. This change will affect not only the students but their teachers, parents, and community. Technology can provide ways to help: everything from the wealth of information available on the web to a greater ability for distance learning. Technology is not the only factor in the new learning shift, but its integration within the classroom is important. A willingness to change is important for the opportunities it affords students for better learning, but as globalization increases the new learning approach becomes necessary to allow students to compete.

---

References

1. ↑ Education Reforms and Students at Risk: A Review of the Current State of the Art - January 1994, Retrieved July 14 from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/EdReforms/title.html
2. ↑ Siemens, George. (2004) "Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age." http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.
3. ↑ ^{3.0 3.1} Levin, James A. and Bruce, Bertram C. (2001)"Technology as Media: A Learner Centered Perspective." Retrieved 11 July 2007. http://moodle.ed.uiuc.edu/mod/resource/view.php?id=11940.
4. ↑ ^{4.0 4.1 4.2} Jung, I. (2005). "ICT-Pedagogy Integration in Teacher Training: Application Cases Worldwide." Educational Technology & Society, 8 (2), 94-101. http://www.ifets.info/journals/8_2/8.pdf5
5. ↑ Napper, Vicki S. "Impact of the New Educational Technology Standards on USA Schools." XVI Annual International Occupational Ergonomics and Safety Conference(2002) 19 July 2007. http://www.education.umn.edu/kls/ecee/pdfs/ImpactOfNewEdTechStdsInUSA_Napper.pdf.
6. ↑ Savukinas, Jacqueline L. "e-Learning: Impacts of IT on Education." 19 July 2007. https://www.esa.doc.gov/reports/DE2002_CH7.pdf.
7. ↑ Kasper, Loretta F. "New Technologies, New Literacies: Focus Discipline Research And ESL Learning Communities," Language Learning & Technology Vol. 4, No. 2, September 2000, pp. 105-128
8. ↑ Robinson, B., & Latchem, C. (2003). "Teacher education: challenges and change." In B. Robinson, & C. Latchem (Eds.), "Teacher education through open and distance learning," London: RoutledgeFalmer, 1-27.
9. ↑ Cuban, L. (1992, Summer). What happens to reforms that last? The case of the junior high school. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 227-251, Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/profdevl/pd2twoty.htm
10. ↑ James S. Coleman, (1972),"The Children Have Outgrown the Schools," Psychology Today, pp. 72-76.
11. ↑ Jennings, Wayne B., (1998) Edited by Stringfield, Sam, Ross, Steven and Smith, Lana, Bold Plans for School Restructuring, Lawrence Elbaum & Associates, Inc. Retrieved July 15 2007 from http://www.designshare.com/articles/read.asp?apg=1005
12. ↑ International Society for Technology in Education. "National Education Technology Standards for Students." Retrieved July 19, 2007 from http://cnets.iste.org/students/s_esscond.html.
13. ↑ Bingler, Steven. "The Next Wave: New Learning Environments." Retrieved July 19, 2007 from http://www.peterli.com/archive/spm/937.shtm.
14. ↑ "Creating a Learning Environment for the Twenty-first Century." Retrieved July 18, 2007 from http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/library/learningenvironment/.
15. ↑ Brown, John Seely, (2005), New Learning Environments for the 21st Century, Forum for the Future of Higher Education 2005 Aspen Symposium, Retrieved July 14, 2007 from http://www.johnseelybrown.com/newlearning.pdf
16. ↑ King, Cheryl, Mosaic, Education Development Center, Inc. Accessed July 15 2007 from http://main.edc.org/Mosaic/Mosaic10/king.asp
17. ↑ Monroe, Barbara, (2006), Technology & Education: Issues in Administration, Policy and Applications in K12 Schools, Advances in Educational Administration, Vol.8, 213-229
18. ↑ King, Cheryl, Mosaic, Education Development Center, Inc. Retrieved July 15, 2007 from http://main.edc.org/Mosaic/Mosaic10/king.asp
19. ↑ Consortium for School Networking, Washington, DC 20036-300, http://www.cosn.org/resources/grunwald/digital_leadership_divide.pdf
20. ↑ Andy Carvin, (2006), The Gap, School Library Journal, 52 (3). pp.70-72. Retrieved July, 2007 from http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6312460.html
21. ↑ State Strategies and Practices for Educational Technology: Vol I, Examining the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program, (2007) U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development
22. ↑ State Strategies and Practices for Educational Technology: Vol I, Examining the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program, (2007) U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development
23. ↑ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education, Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, 1982-83 through 2003-04, Retrieved July 17, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_084.asp
24. ↑ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Projections of Education Statistics to 2014, Retrieved July 17, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_001.asp
25. ↑ U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2003, Retrieved July 17, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_416.asp
26. ↑ U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), October 1997 and October 2003, unpublished tabulations. Retrieved July 17, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d05/tables/dt05_418.asp
27. ↑ Federal Programs for Education and Related Programs, (2), U.S. Department of Education, Retrieved July 20, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003060d.pdf
28. ↑ An Update on State Standards and Assessment Systems, May 2007, U.S. Department of Education, Retrieved July 20, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/statesystems.pdf
29. ↑ Choice and Supplemental Educational Services Frequently Asked Questions, U.S. Department of Education accessed July 20, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/parents/schools/choice/choice.html
30. ↑ How No Child Left Behind Helps Charters Schools, U.S. Department of Education, Retrieved July 20, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/choice/charter/charter.html
31. ↑ Institute of Education Services, National Center for Education Statistics, Retrieved July 20, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/
32. ↑ Communications Device. Webopedia. Retrieved on July 19, 2007 from http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/c/communications.html
33. ↑ Taylor, A., Booth, S., & Tindell M. (2006). Deaf-Blind Communication Devices. Braille Monitor, 49, (9). Retrieved on July 20, 2007 from http://www.nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm06/bm0609/bm0609tc.htm
34. ↑ http://www.cellphedia.com/
35. ↑ Institutional Repository. Wikipedia. Retrieved on July 20, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_repository
36. ↑ Lynch, C. (2003). Institutional Repositories: Essential Infrastructure for Scholarship in the Digital Age. ARL: A Bimonthly Report. 226. Retrieved on 20 July 2007 from http://www.arl.org/resources/pubs/br/br226/br226ir.shtml
37. ↑ Hand-held Personal Computer (PC). Wikipedia. Retrieved July 19, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handheld_PC
38. ↑ Baumbach, D., Bird, M., Katz, K., Rendon, B., & Renfroe, M. (2002) Handheld Technologies. SouthEast Initiatives Regional Technology in Education Consortium, 5, (2). Retrieved on July 20, 2007 from http://www.seirtec.org/publications/NewsWire/Vol5.2.pdf
39. ↑ Baumbach, D., Bird, M., Katz, K., Rendon, B., & Renfroe, M. (2002) Handheld Technologies. SouthEast Initiatives Regional Technology in Education Consortium, 5, (2). Retrieved on July 20, 2007 from http://www.seirtec.org/publications/NewsWire/Vol5.2.pdf
40. ↑ CCTV: Constant Cameras Track Violators (2003). National Institute of Justice Journal, 249. Retrieved on July 20, 2007 from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/html/cd_rom/tech_docs/pubs/CCTVConstantCamerasTrackViolators.pdf
41. ↑ CCTV: Constant Cameras Track Violators (2003). National Institute of Justice Journal, 249. Retrieved on July 20, 2007 from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/html/cd_rom/tech_docs/pubs/CCTVConstantCamerasTrackViolators.pdf
42. ↑ Nichols, L. (March 2001). International Association of Chiefs of Police. Cutting Edge of Technology. Retrieved on July 19, 2007 from http://www.theiacp.org/documents/pdfs/Publications/UseofCCTV.pdf
43. ↑ Nichols, L. (March 2001). International Association of Chiefs of Police. Cutting Edge of Technology. Retrieved on July 19, 2007 from http://www.theiacp.org/documents/pdfs/Publications/UseofCCTV.pdf
44. ↑ Nichols, L. (March 2001). International Association of Chiefs of Police. Cutting Edge of Technology. Retrieved on July 19, 2007 from http://www.theiacp.org/documents/pdfs/Publications/UseofCCTV.pdf
45. ↑ Greenberg, G. (1998). Distance education technologies: Best practices for K-12 settings. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, (Winter) 36-40.
46. ↑ Teaster, P., & Blieszner, R. (1999). Promises and pitfalls of the interactive television approach to teaching adult development and aging. Educational Gerontology, 25 (8), 741-754.
47. ↑ Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6, (1). Retrieved on July 20, 2007 from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/spring61/levy61.htm
48. ↑ O’Quinn, L. and Corry, M. (2002). Factors that Deter Faculty from Participating in Distance Education. Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5, (4). Retrieved on July 19, 2007 from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/winter54/Quinn54.htm
49. ↑ United States Department of Commerce. Digital Divide Summit. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/summit/
50. ↑ Fanton, J. (2007, June 19). New generations, new media challenges. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/DCBC066ECF7D5914862572FE007F44E5?OpenDocument
51. ↑ Salpeter, J. (2006). Inside the Divide. Technology and Learning, 26, (8). Retrieved on July 20, 2007 from http://www.techlearning.com/story/showArticle.php?articleID=181502165
52. ↑ Burbules, N., Callistar, T., & Taaffe, C. (2006). Beyond the Digital Divide. Technology and Education, 8, 85-99.
53. ↑ Tapscott, Don. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from, http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/jan98/feat_6/digital.html.
54. ↑ Tapscott, Don. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/jan98/feat_6/digital.html.
55. ↑ North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2005). Critical Issue: Using Technology to Improve Student Achievement. Retrieved July 13, 2007, from http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/jan98/feat_6/digital.html.
56. ↑ Weis, T., Benmayor, R., O’Leary, C., & Eynon, B (2002). Digital Technologies and Pedagogies. Journal of Social Justice. Retrieved July 13, 2007, from http://ruap.csumb.edu/lifestories/newpage/pdf/journal.pdf.
57. ↑ Sharples, Mike. (2000). The Design of Personal Mobile Technologies for Lifelong Learning. Retrieved July 13, 2007, from http://www.lsri.nottingham.ac.uk/msh/Papers/handler%20comped.pdf.
58. ↑ Tapscott, Don. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from, http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/jan98/feat_6/digital.html.
59. ↑ Tapscott, Don. (1998). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from, http://www.ncsu.edu/meridian/jan98/feat_6/digital.html.
60. ↑ Sharples, Mike. (2000). The Design of Personal Mobile Technologies for Lifelong Learning. Retrieved July 13, 2007, from http://www.lsri.nottingham.ac.uk/msh/Papers/handler%20comped.pdf.
61. ↑ http://www.courses.dsu.edu/cet760/Introduction_to_Education.htm
62. ↑ Valdez, Gilbert. Critical Issue Technology: A Catalyst for Teaching and Learning in the Classroom. Retrieved July 20, 2007. http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te600.htm.
63. ↑ Resource for Assessing Technology Standards. Retrieved July 20, 2007. http://access.k12.wv.us/ats/ats.pdf.
64. ↑ Overview of Technology and Education Reform. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/EdTech/overview.html.
65. ↑ ^{65.0 65.1} Carnegie Endowment. “Technology and Globalization. Retrieved July 18, 2007 from http://www.globalization101.org/uploads/File/Technology/techall.pdf.
66. ↑ Associated Press. (2007). “Equal lack of opportunity: Global job market squeezes the old and the young.” International Herald Tribune. 8 February 2007. Retrieved July 19, 2007 from http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/08/business/jobs.php
67. ↑ Conlin, Michelle and Bernstein, Aaron. (2004) “Working and Poor.” Business Week. Retrieved July 19, 2007. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_22/b3885001_mz001.htm.
68. ↑ Global Policy Forum. “Globalization of Politics.” Retrieved July 19, 2007. http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/politics/index.htm.

Note

This wiki is for use by students in EPS 415 for the development of a collaborative site on the topic of New Learning. If you are not a member of the project team, please do not edit this page. We will post it as a public wiki once the project team have finalized their version.