The Academic Communities of Engagement (ACE) framework describes learner engagement in online and blended learning environments and identifies the critical limiting and facilitating factors (Borup et al., 2020). Specifically, the ACE framework identifies three dimensions of engagement: affective, behavioral, and cognitive (the ABC dimensions of engagement). Within a blended or online learning environment, students can independently engage in learning activities without the support of others. However, a learner’s independent engagement is likely insufficient for academic success and require support from others to be successful. The ACE framework originally grouped support actors within the following two communities:  The course community of support consisting of those who support the student because of the course enrollment (i.e., instructors, peers) The personal community of support consisting of supportive individuals outside of the course (i.e., friends, family). The framework can also be adapted to various contexts, and we share three adaptation examples.

Makerspaces are experiential learning environments that facilitate creative activities, problem solving, collaborative learning, and in-depth exploration of disciplinary concepts. These spaces generally support active, hands-on/minds-on learning experiences that promote learner agency, self-regulation, and product-oriented learning. Makerspaces commonly include technology such as 3D printers, cutting machines, laser printers, heat presses, dyers, and computers with various design software. Makerspaces also include less technological resources such as general arts and crafts supplies. In P-16+ educational settings, makerspaces are commonly found in library or lab settings; however, they can also be housed in mobile carts or within individual classrooms.

A Flipped Classroom is an instructional strategy in which students acquire knowledge at home and practice it in class. This is the opposite of the common practice of teaching new material in class and assigning homework and projects to be completed at home. Flipped classrooms offer students greater freedom to learn at their own pace and more opportunities to engage in active learning than traditional classrooms. The foundation of a flipped classroom is the "flipped learning" component. Numerous studies have examined the impact of flipped learning in K-12 and higher education, and numerous benefits of the flipped classroom have been reported worldwide.

Technocentrsim in education is a perspective that foregrounds the impact of technology on learning, teaching and assessment. It considers technology as a source of change that directly influences social development and knowledge construction. In a general sense, technocentrsim refers to the way of thinking that views technology as a central component for addressing complex social issues and reforming the education system. According to Papert (1987), technocentric thinking leads to questions that investigate the impact of technology on human interaction and development, such as learning, without considering the complexity of the context in which the technology is situated. Technocentric thinking separates digital technologies from the social and cultural context and suggests a one-way influence of technology on educational policies and practices, including pedagogy, teacher roles and education objectives. Researchers in the digital education field have proposed several approaches to address technocentrism in education by acknowledging the role of technology and the complexity of the relationships between different social and material components in the educational setting (cf., Brennan, 2015; O’Donoghue et.al, 2001; Papert, 1988).

This encyclopedia is a living volume that provides an entry point for learning about the educational technology field and that evolves over time with additional contributions and resources. Representing the perspectives of educational technology researchers, instructors, designers, developers, and practitioners throughout the world, it includes short, focused articles on foundational topics ranging from learning and design concepts to emerging technologies to policies shaping the future of educational technology. Each article is peer-reviewed and intended to provide an expert and up-to-date understanding of the topic, while also providing a space for community contributors to share helpful resources related to the topic.

EdTechnica is currently accepting proposals for new encyclopedia articles on topics of interest to the educational technology community. This is an open and living volume intended to have wide impact and broad reach to practitioners and scholars throughout the world.

In this encyclopedia, we use the term “Educational Technology” broadly and inclusively to encompass any professional practices, research projects, areas of inquiry, or professional communities that work at the intersection of teaching/learning and technology.

EdTechnica seeks to be a democratic, efficient, egalitarian, and ethical organization that allows educational technology professionals to harmoniously work together for the common good. It also seeks to be an open and transparent organization that welcomes individuals with diverse backgrounds and perspectives.

This encyclopedia seeks to provide a uniform aesthetic and user experience and uses a basic style guide to ensure that visuals follow a common theme between articles. Beyond generic APA 7 formatting required of all submissions, the Editorial Board employs the efforts of graphic designers and other professionals to make all visual content elements follow the EdTechnica Style Guide. This provides a sense of unity and an important level of production quality to all materials published in the encyclopedia.

EdTechnica uses an open call for submissions. However, to help authors to know what topics we are interested in receiving and to facilitate collaboration between prospective authors, we provide this Article Planning Sheet for anyone to view. Additionally, if you would like to propose a term/topic or would like to commit to writing an article, please contact the editors at editor@edtechnica.org.

This page provides guided instructions on how reviews should be conducted on new submissions and major revisions that are being considered for the encyclopedia. Submissions are only sent out for review after an initial editorial review has been conducted to ensure general content and stylistic alignment with the encyclopedia.

The information on this page is provided primarily for the benefit of Editorial Board members to assist in the administration and future development of the encyclopedia.

This page provides a list of all authors who have published entries in the encyclopedia.

One of EdTechnica's goals is to ensure that knowledge about educational technology is informed by diverse voices and perspectives. As part of this goal, we seek to ensure that our articles include the perspectives of historically marginalized groups in the field, such as women and professionals outside the U.S. This dashboard provides a quick, up-to-date view of author demographic information across all of our articles to help ensure transparency and track our progress.

The educational technology field relies upon many abbreviations (e.g., acronyms, initialisms) in both technical literature and common language that may be difficult for novices to decipher. This page provides a simple key for interpreting many common abbreviations that community members are likely to encounter.

Blended teaching is the strategic combination of instruction in two different modalities: online and in-person (Graham, 2021). This article addresses the question of why instructors choose to teach in a blended modality. It also addresses seven common challenges to student engagement that intentional blended strategies can help to overcome. A few practical examples of strategic blends are provided. Finally, two research-based competency frameworks are shared to help blended instructors increase their awareness and self-evaluation of core pedagogical skills for effective blended teaching.

Decision-based learning (DBL) is a teaching method that organizes instruction around the conditional knowledge that guides experts’ decision-making processes. An expert unpacks how they make decisions in the given domain to create an expert decision model, which can be represented visually. Students use the model to guide them through real-world problems or scenarios. Instruction is available at each decision point. Soon, students must perform without the model’s help. Appropriate use of DBL helps students function in the domain and lays a necessary foundation for understanding and applying underlying theories of the discipline.

Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) is “a temporary shift of instructional delivery to an alternate delivery mode due to crisis circumstances” (Hodges et al., 2020, para. 13). In contrast to online learning, this term describes instruction that is entirely remote and is not as robust as intentionally planned and well-designed online learning solutions. While ERT relies solely on technology-mediated learning and can include online learning, it is not limited to online learning solutions. For example, it may involve the use of radio, print, television, telephone, mobile devices, and other mediating technologies that can be delivered remotely. ERT is also different from education in emergencies, which often involves longer-term solutions to address emergency or crisis situations such as displaced refugees, although at times the two may be difficult to distinguish. Hodges et al. (2021) emphasize three characteristics of ERT – temporal in nature, immediacy of an emergency, and the remote nature of instruction – all of which are essential in distinguishing ERT from other terms it may be conflated with, such as online learning or education in emergencies. The purpose of this chapter is to position ERT as a unique term requiring a clear definition of the construct in relation to other prior or emergent adjacent constructs such as education in emergencies and pandemic pedagogy.

Microcredentials (or micro-credentials) are the records of the learning outcomes that a learner has acquired following a small volume of learning, which is assessed against transparent and clearly defined criteria (European Commission, 2022). While there is no global consensus on the definition of a microcredential, the above definition adopted by all EU Member States goes beyond the bottom-up movement of issuing open badges. It distinguishes microcredentials as (digital) proofs of meeting defined learning outcomes that are assessed, quality-assured, and verified by a trusted body. Moreover, microcredentials are expected to provide metadata transparently showing the learner’s identity, awarding body, date of issue, study hours needed to achieve the learning outcomes (including credit value and level if applicable), type of assessment, and form of participation. While other terms are often used interchangeably to refer to microcredentials (e.g., digital badges, digital credentials, online certificates, alternative credentials, nano-degrees, micromasters, master tracks, and specializations), they do not always meet the above requirements. Importantly, the definition in this paper, which draws on contemporary international developments in the area, positions microcredentials as a core feature of the 21st-century credentialing ecosystem where they can be stackable or combinable with other verified qualifications or used on their own as evidence of learning.

Microlearning is a strategy of delivering short, stand-alone instruction with one or two knowledge or skill-based objectives as part of or within formal, non-formal and informal learning environments through any modality. There are varying definitions of the term microlearning in the literature. Paul (2016), for example, refers to microlearning as a form of e-learning delivered in small chunks, focused on delivering skill-based and just-in-time learning, which is competency-based and immediacy-focused (see Figure 1). Others define the term from a problem-centred, and connectivist view that engages students to “solve a problem, direct their own learning, apply their knowledge or connect with others” (Major & Calandrino, 2018, p. 2). From a connectivist view (De Gagne et al., 2019), microlearning prioritizes the development of learners’ capacity to connect and associate multiple ideas and resources from different microlearning objects. As a result, learners can connect with diverse sources of information and their peers, leading to a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

Open educational practices (OEP) is an umbrella term that includes the creation, use, and reuse of open educational resources (OER); pedagogical practices encouraging peer learning, collaborative knowledge creation, sharing, and empowerment of learners; and systemic and structural initiatives to support and embed openness. The underlying values of OEP match those of open education more broadly, i.e. enabling educational access, ensuring inclusivity, and furthering equity. Examples of OEP include using OER, renewable/non-disposable assignments (where students publish work openly), collaborative annotation, Wikipedia editing, open courses, and engaging in open learning/teaching communities, among many others. Some people use the terms 'OEP' and 'open pedagogy' interchangeably, while others consider OEP to be a broader concept, inclusive of open pedagogy, as the latter focuses primarily on teaching practices (see Open Pedagogy). OEP can be enacted at the level of individual artifacts, modules or programs (via OER, open pedagogy, open textbooks, open learning design) as well as systemically across institutional structures (via open education policies, open publishing practices, reward/recognition structures). Recent OEP research focuses on the importance of critical and social justice approaches, reflecting wider trends in digital and higher education. Such approaches acknowledge the importance of context and power relations and encourage diverse, inclusive, and equitable approaches to openness.

Open educational resources (OER) are copyrightable works useful for educational purposes that exist in the public domain or under a copyright license that provides free and perpetual permission to retain, revise, remix, reuse, and redistribute (collectively known as the “5R Activities''). The term “Open Educational Resources” was originally coined at a 2002 Forum on Open Courseware organized by the United Nations Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (UNESCO; UNESCO, 2002). OER comprise the foundational component of the broader concept of Open Education and may include full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, videos, tests, and any other copyrightable physical or digital tools or materials used to support access to knowledge (Hewlett Foundation, 2022). Creative Commons provides the most commonly used legal schema for granting an open license to a copyrightable educational resource (Creative Commons, 2020a, 2020b; Kimmons, 2018). Instructional techniques that utilize or rely on OER are generally classified as Open Educational Pedagogy, Open Educational Practices, or OER-Enabled Pedagogy (Wiley, 2013, 2015, 2017).

Open pedagogy is a set of teaching practices built on the foundation of the open education community’s shared values, including but not limited to student agency, sharing, diversity and inclusion, peer learning, renewable assignments, co-creation/collaboration, and active/experiential learning. Though there is a lack of consensus around the definition of open pedagogy, it most often refers to student involvement in the development of course content in the form of renewable assignments or the creation or adaptation of open educational resources (OER). The practice of open pedagogy may result in or overlap with OER-enabled pedagogy and open educational practices.

Personalized learning is an instructional strategy that tailors instruction to learners’ unique backgrounds, interests, abilities, or needs, and commonly includes the prescription that learners have some voice and choice (i.e., agency) in such tailoring. Personalized learning is not a new strategy, though it has seen a rise in popularity in research and practice since the turn of the 21st century. Personalized learning has also seen a variety of descriptions and implementations since the turn of the 21st century. Various definitions of personalized learning have required the pedagogy to include some semblance of mastery-based learning, strong connections between learners or others included in the instruction, engaging instruction, and/or individual learning plans for each learner. There has also been a demand to describe personalized learning by including a more detailed awareness of what learning is being personalized, how it is being personalized, who controls the personalization, and what data informs the personalization.

Phenomenology is the contemplative study of human experience. It refers to a philosophical framework as well as a methodology that can inform educational practice and research. It seeks to reveal and understand how phenomena may be experienced as they are actually lived in the everyday world, or what some phenomenologists refer to as the lifeworld. Phenomenological philosophy suggests that everything in the lifeworld is inextricably connected in a social context, and so phenomenology aims to be more attentive to such meaningful connections—or intentional relations—within lived experiences and to illuminate them as a means to deeply understand the experience of the phenomenon under focus. Phenomenology can support all aspects of education by increasing sensitivity toward the many processes and practices it involves. When used as a naturalistic research methodology with qualitative methods of data collection and analysis, it can provide authentic insight for educators to use educational technologies in ethical and socially responsible ways.

Professional learning networks (PLNs) are uniquely crafted and dynamic learning ecosystems, consisting of people, spaces, and tools that meet an educator’s professional needs, interests, and goals (Trust et al., 2016). They serve as a means through which people grow in aspects of their professions. The people within a PLN are individuals who provide career-based feedback, advice, ideas, emotional support, and/or mentoring (Krutka et al., 2017; Trust et al., 2016). The spaces within a PLN are physical, digital, and hybrid places that support or enable professional knowledge building with and from others, such as conferences, workshops, webinars, Twitter chats, unconferences, Reddit forums, and massive open online courses (Trust & Prestridge, 2021). The tools within a PLN are physical resources (e.g., books, curriculum materials) and digital technologies (e.g., Internet search databases, social bookmarking tools, blogs) that are used to access, curate, construct, and disseminate professional knowledge (Trust et al., 2018). Taken together, the people, spaces, and tools within a PLN can support ongoing professional learning and growth for individuals in any academic or organizational context.

PICRAT is a technology integration model for teacher education intended to assist teachers in improving their classroom practices. PICRAT (Kimmons et al., 2020; see Figure 1) has two parts representing two guiding questions: PIC and RAT. The PIC part responds to the question “What is the student’s relationship to the technology” with one of three responses: Passive, Interactive, or Creative. The RAT (Hughes et al., 2006) part responds to the question “How is the use of technology influencing the teacher’s existing practice” with one of three responses: Replacement, Amplification, or Transformation. Answers to these two questions are organized into a 3x3 visual matrix (with PR on the bottom left and CT on the top-right; see Figure 1). Practices are interpreted hierarchically with more active, more effective, and better-justified classroom technology practices generally occurring at the top-right of the matrix.

The Replacement, Amplification, Transformation (RAT) framework is a technology integration model and assessment tool that instructors can use to critically consider how their integration of technology in their classrooms serves their students and themselves. Originally developed by Dr. Joan Hughes in 1998, the RAT model aimed to study how teachers developed and integrated technology for teaching, learning, and curriculum development (Hughes, 2022). Hughes, Thomas, & Scharber (2006) further positioned the model as a framework for self-assessing technology integration "as a means to some pedagogical and curricular end." In her RAT Question Guide (2022), Hughes provides suggestions for extending this self-assessment to the school/district level. There are three primary purposes for technology integration outlined within the framework: to Replace existing, often non-digital, practices; to Amplify existing practices; and to Transform teaching, learning, and curricular goal development through digital practices.

Self-Efficacy is grounded in Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory (1977, 1986) and is the belief that motivation to learn as a student, or acquire new teaching strategies as a teacher, is based on two variables: (1) the belief that one can successfully learn and apply the subject and (2) the belief that there is a positive outcome from the learning. Self-efficacy theory is robust in that it applies to all disciplines and behaviors. To achieve maximum student learning, educators must be attuned to the self-efficacy levels of their students as well as their own levels. Research by Hickman (1993, 2019), DeMoulin (1993), and Ashton (1985) have drawn clear correlations between levels of self-efficacy and student achievement. For faculty, self-efficacy is related to openness in acquiring new strategies, adopting technological innovations, avoiding burnout, and remaining current in their fields (Hickman & Sherman, 2019).

The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) Framework describes the types of knowledge required by teachers for the successful and effective integration of technology in teaching. The most current representation of the framework is in the form of a three-circle Venn diagram within a larger circle. At the center are three partially overlapping circles representing three key knowledge domains: Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK) and Technological Knowledge (TK). The fourth circle (typically shown as a dotted line) encompasses the three overlapping circles and represents Contextual Knowledge (XK). Most importantly, the TPACK framework proposes that effective integration of technology in teaching requires the integration of the four TPACK knowledge domains—a form of knowledge greater than the knowledge of each of these domains in isolation. It is, instead, a recognition and deep understanding that these knowledge domains exist in tension with each other and that effective technology integration requires finding the right balance that connects the affordances of the technology with the requirements of the content and the pedagogical approaches given a particular educational context.