The annotated bibliography is an alphabetical list (by author) of the library sources you have chosen to illustrate and support the ideas you state in your research paper. Using the APA style, list the reference entry for 5 of your sources. You should have 10 sources by now, but you will only need to choose 5 to write annotations on. Skip one line following the reference entry and write a short paragraph summarizing what is in that source that you think you will be able to use in your paper and discuss the credibility of that source. Remember that you are writing the annotations for your citations, condense the article into a few sentences and extract the most important ideas from that article. Write a short summary for each article you list on the annotated bibliography. Each annotation should be about 3-5 sentences.
The annotated bibliography is your working bibliography and later becomes your References page, which appears at the end of your research paper (your References page will not have annotations, though). As you are writing your research paper, continue to up-date the working bibliography so that it accurately reflects the sources that you do actually use in writing your paper. If you find additional sources you want to use in your paper, add these sources to your working annotated bibliography. Likewise, if you find that you cannot use a source that is listed on your original working bibliography, delete that source.
The final References page of your research paper should be an exact index to the in-text citations in your paper and should be turned in with your rough draft and your final draft of the research paper. You will not submit your Annotated Bibliography with the final research paper.
Title: Use of technology in education in the 21st century
Name of Course:
Andriole, S. (2006) Business Technology Education in the Early 21st Century: The Ongoing Quest for Relevance, Journal of Information Technology Education, 5(2), 1-12.
Andriole notes that the information technology field is changing and responses to these changes have been noted with regard to changes in the computing curriculum. The five new distinct majors that are of relevance for business include computer science, computer engineering, software engineering, information technology, and information systems. However, the new curricular fail to address the real depth and the speed with which changes in this field should be undertaken in order to be of immediate business benefit. Indeed, the gap between theory and practice appears to be widening.
Massaquoi, J. (2009) Strengthening peacebuilding through Science and Technology Education, Science Education International, 20(2), 5-24.
Massaquoi finds out about the different peacebuilding actions that need the input of science and technology in the 21st century. He identifies such inputs as scientific knowledge, application of this knowledge, and the processes that are used in the acquisition of scientific knowledge. The author argues that these three aspects of technology can have a great influence on poverty reduction, socio-economic development, communication and dialogues within and between communities. They can be very influential in nurturing a mindset that promotes peace.
Dede, C. (2009) Six Challenges for Educational Technology, Retrieved from http://www.virtual.gmu.edu/pdf/ASCD.pdf
Dede identifies six challenges that schools face in efforts to put technology into good use within educational settings. The first challenge is on the cost of purchasing effective technological tools such as state-of-the-art computers. The second challenge is on the sustainability of new models of learning and teaching technology. Thirdly, there is the question of enticing disinterested educators into the world of technology education, while the fourth challenge involves how to prove to communities about the viability of technology-based teaching models. The author also talks about the challenge of bringing about equity through technology while lastly, the challenge of determining the expectations of a ‘typical’ student performance.
Culp, K. (2005) A Retrospective on Twenty Years of Education Technology Policy
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(3), 279 – 307
This article focuses on a 20-year analysis of key policy reports that address the challenges and opportunities of integrating technology into K-12 education in the US. The main question addressed is why there is a need for investment in education technologies. The author also notes that drastic measures have not been undertaken in order to ensure maximum utilization of technology in education.
Compton, V. (2003) Enhancing Technological Practice: An Assessment Framework for Technology Education in New Zealand, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(1), 1-26.
The author focuses on the aim of technology in the context of New Zealand’s experiences. The paper introduces an organizational tool for developing and delivering technology programs known as Technology Assessment Framework. This framework is for increasing the technological literacy of students.
Flowers, J. (2001) Online Learning Needs in Technology Education, Journal of Technology Education, 13(1), 23-65.
The paper assesses the perceived online learning needs of students and the influence this perception has on the students’ appreciation of technology. This perception, argues Flowers, is a key determinant of academic performance with regard to continuing education credits and even entire degree programs. Flowers urges for further research on obstacles that students face in technology education.
Lewis, T. (2004) A Turn to Engineering: The Continuing Struggle of Technology Education for Legitimization as aSchool Subject, Journal of Technology Education, 16(1), 21-39.
Clark, A. (2001) Comparing Computer Usage by Students in education Programs to Technology Education Majors, Journal of Technology Education, 13(1), 5-18.
Michael, K. (2001) The Effect of a Computer Simulation Activity versus a hands-on Activity on Product Creativity in TechnologyEducation, Journal of Technology Education, 13(1),31-43.
Parkinson, E. 2001, Teacher Knowledge and Understanding of Design and Technology for Children in the 3-11 Age Group: AStudy Focusing on Aspects of Structures, Journal of Technology Education, 13(1), 44-58.
Reed, P. (2001) Learning Style and Laboratory Preference:A Study of Middle School Technology EducationTeachers in Virginia, Journal of Technology Education, 13(1), 59-71.