Example from the Hansard archive. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0
In 1975, educationaltechnology takes a big fall.
Sometimes it is not obvious that an educationaltechnology proposal doesn't really have an intended educational outcome.
If a particular educationaltechnology is a solution, it really pays to have well-articulated problems in mind that the technology is meant to address.
If budget decision makers are skeptical types, then perhaps maintaining the current educationaltechnology infrastructure will suffice.
Instructors and instructional technologists who promote the adoption of educationaltechnology commonly participate in a discourse pattern focused on technology products, software, and services.
A wide range of topics are covered, from educationaltechnology to the role of literature and teacher preparation.
Instructors, for their part, remain unaware of the variety of educationaltechnology solutions available and their associated costs.
When devising an administrative structure for people who do educationaltechnology support, there are two broad options.
The growing use of educationaltechnology in instruction requires research into its effects on student achievement.
When the discourse of educationaltechnology support revolves around products and technologies, support requests become technology requests.
An effective educationaltechnology support program aims to improve instruction by purposefully bringing all three dimensions to bear on projects and initiatives.
Such a product orientation is the norm in educationaltechnology deliberations.
The seventies can even be described as the heyday of educationaltechnology.
In order to meet the needs of older and younger students, further clarification of the different goals and experiences associated with using educationaltechnology for music learning is necessary.
See all examples of educational technology
These examples are from corpora and from sources on the web. Any opinions in the examples do not represent the opinion of the Cambridge Dictionary editors or of Cambridge University Press or its licensors.