Vertical Available, Demo Only
Online Education Technology
Educational technology is defined by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology as “the study and ethical practice of facilitating learning and improving performance by creating, using, and managing appropriate technological processes and resources.”[1]
Educational technology refers to the use of both physical hardware and educational theoretics. It encompasses several domains, including learning theory, computer-based training, online learning, and, where mobile technologies are used, m-learning. Accordingly, there are several discrete aspects to describing the intellectual and technical development of educational technology:
- educational technology as the theory and practice of educational approaches to learning
- educational technology as technological tools and media that assist in the communication of knowledge, and its development and exchange
- educational technology for learning management systems (LMS), such as tools for student and curriculum management, and education management information systems (EMIS)
- educational technology itself as an educational subject; such courses may be called “Computer Studies” or “Information and communications technology (ICT)”.
Given this definition, educational technology is an inclusive term for both the material tools and the theoretical foundations for supporting learning and teaching. Educational technology is not restricted to high technology.[6]
However, modern electronic educational technology is an important part of society today.[7] Educational technology encompasses e-learning, instructional technology, information and communication technology (ICT) in education, EdTech, learning technology, multimedia learning, technology-enhanced learning (TEL), computer-based instruction (CBI), computer managed instruction, computer-based training (CBT), computer-assisted instruction or computer-aided instruction (CAI),[8] internet-based training (IBT), flexible learning, web-based training (WBT), online education, digital educational collaboration, distributed learning, computer-mediated communication, cyber-learning, and multi-modal instruction, virtual education, personal learning environments, networked learning, virtual learning environments (VLE) (which are also called learning platforms), m-learning, ubiquitous learning and digital education.
Each of these numerous terms has had its advocates, who point up potential distinctive features.[9] However, many terms and concepts in educational technology have been defined nebulously; for example, Fiedler’s review of the literature found a complete lack agreement of the components of a personal learning environment.[10] Moreover, Moore saw these terminologies as emphasizing particular features such as digitization approaches, components or delivery methods rather than being fundamentally dissimilar in concept or principle.[9] For example, m-learning emphasizes mobility, which allows for altered timing, location, accessibility and context of learning;[11] nevertheless, its purpose and conceptual principles are those of educational technology.[9]
In practice, as technology has advanced, the particular “narrowly defined” terminological aspect that was initially emphasized by name has blended into the general field of educational technology.[9] Initially, “virtual learning” as narrowly defined in a semantic sense implied entering an environmental simulation within avirtual world,[12][13] for example in treating posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).[14][15] In practice, a “virtual education course” refers to any instructional course in which all, or at least a significant portion, is delivered by the Internet. “Virtual” is used in that broader way to describe a course that is not taught in a classroom face-to-face but through a substitute mode that can conceptually be associated “virtually” with classroom teaching, which means that people do not have to go to the physical classroom to learn. Accordingly, virtual education refers to a form of distance learning in which course content is delivered by various methods such as course management applications, multimedia resources, and videoconferencing.[16]
As a further example, ubiquitous learning emphasizes an omnipresent learning milieu.[17] Educational content, pervasively embedded in objects, is all around the learner, who may not even be conscious of the learning process: students may not have to do anything in order to learn, they just have to be there.[17][18] The combination of adaptive learning, using an individualized interface and materials, which accommodate to an individual, who thus receives personally differentiated instruction, with ubiquitous access to digital resources and learning opportunities in a range of places and at various times, has been termed smart learning.[19][20][21] Smart learning is a component of the smart city concept.[22][23]
Bernard Luskin, an educational technology pioneer, advocated that the “e” of e-learning should be interpreted to mean “exciting, energetic, enthusiastic, emotional, extended, excellent, and educational” in addition to “electronic.”[24] Parks suggested that the “e” should refer to “everything, everyone, engaging, easy”.[25] These broad interpretations focus on new applications and developments, as well as learning theory and media psychology.[24]
Lebanon
Lebanon /ˈlɛbnən/ is the county seat of Wilson County, Tennessee, United States.[4]
The population was 26,190 at the 2010 census, 28,608 in 2013 and 32.372 following a special census conducted in 2016[5].
Lebanon is located in Middle Tennessee, approximately 25 miles (40 km) east of downtown Nashville. Lebanon is part of the Nashville Metropolitan Statistical Area.
The city was incorporated in 1801,[6] and was named after the biblical cedars of Lebanon.[7] Local residents have called Lebanon “Cedar City”, mostly a reference to the abundance of cedar trees in the area. The city is home to Cumberland University, a small, private four-year liberal arts institution.
As of the census[2] of 2000, there were 20,235 people, 7,987 households, and 5,319 families residing in the city. The population density was 692.0 people per square mile (267.2/km²). There were 8,693 housing units at an average density of 297.3 per square mile (114.8/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 82.89% White, 13.78% African American, 0.33% Native American, 0.82% Asian, 0.03% Pacific Islander, 1.00% from other races, and 1.15% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.26% of the population.
There were 7,987 households out of which 30.9% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 47.7% were married couples living together, 15.0% had a female householder with no husband present, and 33.4% were non-families. 28.5% of all households were made up of individuals and 11.1% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.41 and the average family size was 2.94.