Talk:Educational technology

message: Rambling philosophical, unreferenced article, which has been tagged since 2008. Propose merger here. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Reassessing proposal as there is some literature citing the model. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing merge proposal, as it has no support and seems to have been withdrawn by the proposer (who has significantly improved the article since the proposal was made. Klbrain (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger from [[E-learning maturity model]]

message: Add some information about technologies that are currently being worked on as well as some new technologies that are being implemented into some classrooms today, some that most schools will not have access to yet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaldrich1109 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea for improvement  

message: Add some information about technologies that are currently being worked on as well as some new technologies that are being implemented into some classrooms today, some that most schools will not have access to yet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaldrich1109 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment appears to be in the context of a class assignment. Please remember that we are bound by WP:PILLARS, particularly WP:5P2 and WP:UNDUE, as well as considerations of WP:CRYSTAL. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea for improvement  

message: Add new information about technologies that are currently being used in high school classrooms, such as Google Classroom. Also, SmartBoards are only briefly mentioned in the article, so more about that can be added.Nataliewarner (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment appears to be in the context of a class assignment. Thanks for adding Google Classroom - noting that better sourcing for some of the added content would be appreciated. SmartBoard is a brand of IWB, albeit with some claim to concurrent interactivity with other software, and as such needs less mention in an overview article. That section has been modified today. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

text: This comment appears to be in the context of a class assignment. Please be aware that the WP:NOT policy, specifically the WP:NOTHOWTO component, favors non-inclusion of "how-to" content. Also, this is an overview article; in general, we try to constrain article size per WP:SPLITTING. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add New Information 

message: Some sections of the article, especially the "Teacher Training" section seems very biased to me. The viewpoint that technology is the best way to teach students in today's classrooms is over represented. The viewpoint of teachers that is expressed in the section is that teachers do not want to stray from traditional education, but this may not always be true. The section also states that student teamwork and collaborative problem solving, among other things, are not focused on in today's classrooms, which also may not always be true. These are only a few examples taken from this section, but overall it seems very opinionated.Nataliewarner (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment appears to be in the context of a class assignment. I agree. The references supporting the assertions, such as Jenkins 2009  are dated, are opinion pieces, and were being used somewhat synthetically. In light of the points made, I modified the article text, to tone down the overreach. As with many articles, incorporating newer sources that look at things from a broad perspective would be a nice improvement. I am not entirely sure that the bias has been fully removed with these new edits, but I think adding new well-balanced sources is going to be needed if we are to improve the content further. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

text: This comment appears to be in the context of a class assignment. As explained in the article, "technology" is loaded term with several definitional aspects: it is not confined to material technology. The addition of properly sourced content that addressed the non-material aspects you point to would be a nice addition. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: The "Sociocultural criticism" section seems like a lot of unnecessary information. I fail to see how the views of Lai, Leo Marx, and Winner have to do with educational technology in today's classrooms. I also think that more information on the effect that educational technology is having on today's students grade-wise could be added to improve the article.Nataliewarner (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment appears to be in the context of a class assignment. The sourced views of these individuals are theoretical considerations or criticisms of potential applicability to any educational technology at any time. As to the impact of specific technologies on grades, please remember that we are bound by WP:PILLARS, particularly WP:5P2 and WP:UNDUE, as well as considerations of WP:CRYSTAL. Also, this is an overview article; in general, we try to constrain article size per WP:SPLITTING. I will look at the section again and see if it can be condensed. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

text: This comment appears to be in the context of a class assignment. "Technology" is a loaded term with several distinct definitional aspects: the concept is not confined in use to material technologies themselves, as explained in the article. That said, it may an improvement if an appreciable proportion of that section were merged to e-learning (theory) and / or learning theory (education).  FeatherPluma (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary Information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Educational technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.appstate.edu/~koppenhaverd/rcoe/5532/read/podcast/robinson09.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Parameter modified per manual check. FeatherPluma (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi there!
I'll be adding to the Assessment section of the page to include more information, primarily about how technology can be used for different types of assessments and giving some examples of possible tech assessments.  My drafted section should go in early next week, if anyone is invested in that section and wants to take a look let me know! Doriineia (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like some helpful content added. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I applaud the Assessment section that you added and think that it could be supported by details about scaffolding and, more particularly, the zone of proximal development; the zone of proximal development is the space wherein students work slightly above their current level of ability and where technology can thus assess and support them accordingly. I already added information about the zone of proximal development in the artificial intelligence subsection, and welcome you to add information about it in the Assessments section if you see fit. WordOfMinion (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: One suggestion would be to add a link that leads you to an article that talks a little more about how schools can use Educational Technology. This can tell us what the benefits are if students and teachers use and incorporate technology in education.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linsmaim (talk • contribs) 03:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions  

message: One suggestion would be to add a link that leads you to an article that talks a little more about how schools can use Educational Technology. This can tell us what the benefits are if students and teachers use and incorporate technology in education. Linsmaim (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: I have proposed merging :Category:Educational technologists to :Category:People in educational technology; please comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 15#Category:Educational technologists. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The categories were merged in May 2017: see the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 May 15#Category:Educational technologists. There is no need for further comment here. Biogeographist (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed category merge 

message: I have reverted a good-faith edit from December 2016 for this section, just wanted to offer a view reasons for this removal (too long for an edit summary): 1) It was atleast partially plagiarizing its source - the first sentence is a 1:1 copy. 2) Following the first point, the addition gives undue weight to a single source. 3) Wikipedia articles should not use first-person language and other essay-ish phrases. 4) Parts of the content seem biased and not totally "uninvolved" as required per WP:NPOV. 5) The addition misrepresents the source in some aspects, where the reference has a more nuanced view on the topic. For example: its introduction mentions that the exact advantages of digital learning are questioned by some experts and implementation of digital learning can be difficult (paraphrasing). For a balanced view on the topic such aspects need to be considered instead of only focussing on positive details. Lastly, 6) as a broad overview this article should only give succinct summaries of sub-topics. Detailed secondary information would be better suited for sub-articles.
The source is "", if any topic expert wants to use it for further improvements. GermanJoe (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "K-12" additions reverted 

message: Unless a company or application is mentioned in independent non-promotional sources and its mention would add significant encyclopedic information, such promotional name-dropping should be avoided. Wikipedia is not a textbook - generally trivial "examples" without substantial context are not needed. I removed several instances, where such examples were added without independent sources and any relevant additional information, or where the information was solely based on the provider's say-so. GermanJoe (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning companies and products 

message: I have reverted the recent promotional addition for How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. Aside from the clear promotion/advocacy (see WP:SOAPBOX), a simplistic overview of mostly obvious affordances added nothing of encyclopedic substance to the article and lacked any relevant topical context within the current content. Several of the listed points are also already covered in other article sections in far better context and detail (for example in "Practise"), others were hopelessly vague or banal buzzphrases without substantial factual information. Wikipedia is not a PR platform to popularize new publications, NGOs, or their activities. GermanJoe (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the edit is inherently promotional (it's a followup to an enormously well-respected book published by the National Academies) but the content of the edit - a contextless list of words -  is hugely problematic.  It needs to be further developed or removed completely. ElKevbo (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Respected publications can be promoted just like everything else and sometimes are. But I agree, after fav203's clarification, that there was apparently no promotional intent behind these edits (see comments below). [I struck the "promotional" details in my above message to reflect the later clarification].GermanJoe (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

text: The edit is not promotional, nor is this a PR platform. Graduate students in a graduate course on educational technology are working to summarize and synthesize the key affordances of learning technologies from this well-respected book. While the reading just came out, it's the second version of the text from the National Academies Press that is HIGHLY regarded. The list of words was contextless because it hadn't been populated by the students yet. Their assignment - in groups, discuss two of the affordances and synthesize the chapter's explanation of them in your own words; describe why the two affordances your group is exploring are essential to learning; offer an example of a tool that accomplishes that affordance (and explain why you chose it); and add to a wikipedia page your evaluation and information related to your two affordances. I set up the template for them to populate with their groups. I LITERALLY just put it up when it was taken down, only to put it up again, for it to be taken down again. This was at least a good lesson in demonstrating how educational technology does not always work. fav203  —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Article space is not a good place to draft text.  Feel free to workshop ideas in Talk or Draft space. ElKevbo (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

text: My apologies for the misunderstanding - unfortunately this assignment approach wasn't clear from the editing. I agree with ElKevbo, that a published article might be problematic for such extensive work by several groups at once, and separate draft page(s) or sandboxes might be a better starting point to develop a final text in your own time. Of course constant editing and occasional corrections are common activities here, but when too many editors work on one article at once with unfinished evolving information, it might get a bit messy. I'll post a few additional tips on your user talkpage to avoid bloating this discussion with unrelated general information. GermanJoe (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit removed 

message: Can we possibly develop this topic as a new section?
Thank you.
LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Edit 

message: It seems that Educational technology missing separate sections for software, tools, web and desktop based authoring apps, that EdTech specialists use to produce ALL online learning materials. What do you guys and girls think, should this be included here, or there's already a separate page for that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svaitkus (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Educational technology contain a new section covering tools/production  

message: Hello
Can I add this definition to the Learning Analytics sub-section?
Thanks
LOBOSKYJOJO (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Addition to Learning Analytics 

message: No mention in article. No obvious relevance. 86.155.125.169 (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Convenience link to redirect page:  (uppercase). The redirect was the result of :Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everest Syndrome. As a non-expert I have no stance on the issue, just providing the info. GermanJoe (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does [[Everest syndrome]] redirect here? 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § Online education articles are a mess of forks.   talk 07:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Online education articles are a mess of forks|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 §&nbsp;Online education articles are a mess of forks]]

message: I think that learning principles such as backwards learning, ongoing diagnosis of students’ ability, personalization, proper modality, and multimedia should be described in relation to the underlying theories described in the “Theory” section and/or to the practices described in the “Practice” section. The “Theory” section largely describes the psychological theories behind learning science, but not so much the connection to theories behind the practice. For example, underlying theories behind the technology itself such as spatial contiguity can be described in relation to multimedia technologies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.149.254 (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea for improvement 

message: the flipped classroom section is very sparse, and could be filled out easily. The idea of a flipped classroom is something that has gained popularity over recent years, especially during the educational shifts required by COVID-19. Because of this, there is a lot that could be said about how the flipped classroom works today. Its benefits--as well as its disadvantages--could be easily elaborated on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Ament (talk • contribs) 14:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flipped Classroom 

message: The Template:Educational research box should be removed from this article for the reasons discussed here: Template talk:Educational research#Proposal to replace this with the Template:Education. Sda030 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to replace Template:Educational research with the Template:Education 

message: — Assignment last updated by OneGoodNut (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue

message: — Assignment last updated by Jspence1023 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Pathways to Learning

message: — Assignment last updated by York1210 (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU23 - Sect 200 - Thu

message: Hello, 
I was thinking of adding a paragraph on international cooperation. It has been deleted so I'm proposing it on the talk page, so we can discussed about it if something doesn't seems relevant or if something is missing. 
Here is the proposal, on my sandbox. 
Thank you, 
E.poul (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  International cooperation  

message: — Assignment last updated by Kieramalley (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: EDFN 508 Introduction to Research

message: I would like to expand and update the section on Artificial Intelligence. Only one source is listed after the time when generative AI was released to the public in late 2022. I plan to keep track of any potential changes on my sandbox page.
Two initial thoughts I had when reviewing this section:
(1) The section ends with the sentence "Understanding how to support teachers in a realistic, highly differentiated, self-paced classroom, remains an open research problem." The citation is from 8 years ago. There has been incredible amounts of progress since then, so this information seems like it should be updated.
(2) There have been theories that artificial intelligence will eventually help to close some equity gaps as the adoption of AI tools in developing countries is not far behind that of the developed world. This is currently not mentioned in the section on AI. Kevinmount (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial Intelligence Section