Literature+Review

media type="youtube" key="QDXCmtM8U2w?version=3" height="315" width="420" align="center"

**Abstract** The use of mobile devices and cloud technology is on the rise in educational institutions. This influx of new technological tools is prompting a serious need for training and professional development among educators and students to use these tools effectively and efficiently. This training will enable an ease of use for educators and learners that will significantly improve collaboration among peers and teaching and learning styles in any classroom.

Keywords: tablet PC, tablet computing, iPad, mobile learning, m-learning, ubiquitous learning, u-learning, collaboration, networking, cloud computing, professional development (PD), Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), Web 2.0 **Literature Review Introduction** This paper represents an examination of the existing literature on a conceptual framework for educators and how their way of teaching and the content they teach is integrated with technology. A specific focus of identifying means to promote effective training of educators on tablet and cloud technologies themselves through targeted professional development is central to the literature reviewed. In addition, the researchers endeavor to identify existing research that will aid in the formulation of comprehensive training for educators on how to manage the technologies within their specific content areas and educational levels with a resulting goal of assisting educators in the integration of tablet and cloud technologies into the appropriate pedagogical method for delivering the specific content.

**Tablet Technology Introduction** The use of technology to enhance teaching and learning seems to become a hot topic of conversation amongst educators with the introduction of a new device or software application. In some cases, educators can become polarized in their opinions of the effectiveness or even the need for incorporating new technologies into the classroom. Often times these differing opinions stem from the tension derived from valid concerns and the potential benefits about the use of the technology in question. One of the current trends, the use of tablet computers, in educational technology has not been immune to such scrutiny and apprehension. Literature on the educational use of tablet computers, though not exhaustive, demonstrates similar patterns of concern and potential. These patterns were centered on the areas of hardware versus software suitability, collaboration, mobile learning (m-learning), and professional development (PD). **Keeping Pace: Software Development versus Hardware Production** One challenge which seems to follow advances in computing technologies is adequate and relevant supporting software. This has caused some skepticism regarding the use of tablets in various arenas of education. Murray and Olcese (2010) sought to resolve this point in their study of the applicability of using iPads for teaching and learning by trying to determine if the boom in tablet hardware manufacturing has been matched on the software front. Their underlying question is whether these technologies can offer or do things in an educational setting than traditional methods. Murray and Olcese conducted an analysis of 315 applications for the iPad categorizing each by their educational functionality and usability. After being tested and categorized, each application was sub-categorized by its ability to support collaboration. Their study suggests that even though tablets have proven to be an innovation in computing, software development has not kept pace with the hardware as they relate to education. Tablets encompass a broad array of touch interface computing devices which include the iPad, smart phones, and electronic readers (e-readers). Emory (2010) recognizes the innovation of these tablet technologies in the areas of e-reader by pointing out an explosion of applications for a variety of computing devices and notes that mobile computing devices seem be a major focus. She supports this notion by the numerous public libraries which now offer e-books to their patrons. Free access to e-books is offered by 66 percent of these libraries, almost doubling the percentage from three years prior. The most significant issue found by Emory is the variety of file formats used to publish e-books. This is evident in the range of e-readers, tablet technology dedicated solely to e-books, and the variety of applications available for use with tablet PCs. Additionally, she acknowledges that there is a digital rights management issue which causes conflicts with which programs can be used to read the e-book and which tablet can be used to run the application. Compounding the issue are feelings from some librarians that applications should be developed to capitalize on the use of mobile devices like smartphones instead of tablets and laptops. Emory evidences this by the trend of some publishers developing robust applications targeting the mobile marketplace as an alternative to other weaker application developed for the web. In spite of this contrast in application development, she argues that tablets have had little effect on the smartphone market, but a noticeable impact on laptops and netbooks. This may be due to the rapid adoption of these technologies by a generation of learners who have grown up using this technology. Emory claims that “Tablets are like the Gutenberg Bible on meta-amphetamines: A shift in both readership and content delivery occurs with these new devices.” She concludes that this impact has triggered librarians and publishers to accelerate the development of resources to meet the demand for mobile learning. Murray, Olcese, and Emory have clearly identified how software development has faced the challenge of keeping pace with hardware production. They have also shown that educators desire to integrate tablets for their mobile and collaborative learning potential. **Revolutionary Educating** As previously suggested by Emory, a shift in teaching and learning is occurring as a result of the introduction of tablet computers. The technical prowess of the current generation of learners has spawned a need for innovative teaching methods and versatile educational opportunities. This need has stimulated educators to develop methods to deliver curriculum which meets the social needs of the learners while capitalizing on the portability of the technology. Bonk (2009) identifies portable learning as mobile learning (m-learning) or ubiquitous learning (u-learning). He notes the escalated use of “handheld, portable, and wireless devices by learners on the move” as a factor in the rise of m-learning. As a result, educational events now follow the learner instead of the learner going to a designated place for learning. This would suggest that learners may now expect to engage in learning while sitting in an airport waiting for a flight, on a subway train on the way to work, or while serving in the military at a forward operating base in a foreign land. Learners would only be limited by their ability to access the web. Many educational institutions from K-12 to universities, as Moran, Hawkes, and Gayer (2010) have revealed, are already involved in implementing mobile computing as part of their programs. They attributed this migration to m-learning to “advances in micro- and nano-technology; universal Internet access; wireless networking systems on multiple standards; decreasing costs; and educational priorities that recognize technology’s importance in helping adapt 21st century skills.” In contrast, Bonk acknowledges that there are some primary and secondary schools which have exhibited some temporary resistance toward this move to m-learning, though it may be short lived. He also declares that there are increased expectations that students will possess and used mobile technology in higher education. Moran et al cited Punuel’s 2006 findings of some motivations driving the move toward integrating m-learning. Punuel found these primary motivations: Moran et al constructed a study to evaluate the acceptance of tablets by college students. Their study was based on a research model used in a 2003 publication by Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis called the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model. They chose this model for its significantly high percentage of success, 70 percent, in predicting user acceptance of information technology innovations. Research was conducted through a survey of 361 students which collected responses to questions covering nine technology acceptance areas. Results were compiled and analyzed using partial least squares (PLS) statistical analysis. Validity for the study was supported by measuring both convergent and discriminate evidences to determine the degree to which the construct was different from others in the same model. The results of this study suggest that university students are receptive to the integration of m-learning, specifically the use of tablets. The acceptance of integrated m-learning follows the reasoning of Enriquez (2010) that traditional lecture formats are an ineffective learning environment. He asserts that networking capabilities and stylus input interface make tablet PCs ideal for the collaborative teaching and learning techniques used in engineering education. These collaborative techniques were the focus of Enriquez’s studies using a model referred to as an Interactive Learning Network (ILN). He seeks to address the effects this model has on student performance through two case studies comparing the impact of using the ILN model in the classroom. Enriquez conducted a comparative study of four separate classes taught by the same instructor using the same curriculum. An analysis of student scores and an attitudinal survey was used to form the data to compare performance. The results revealed great potential for the application of ILN in teaching and learning due to the collaborative use of tablet PCs by both the instructor and students.
 * 1) to improve academic success;
 * 2) to increase equity of access to digital resources;
 * 3) to increase a region’s economic competitiveness by preparing students to effectively use technology in the workplace; and
 * 4) to effect a transformation in the quality of instruction.

**Developing the Educator** A common thread across the literature, both implied and noted, was a need for educating the users of the technology. Many students entering classrooms arrive with both and interest and aptitude for using the most current technologies. This may be a result of the ease of access to these technologies at home. Harmon (2012) gives an example of what this looks like in a recounting of his experience with introducing the iPad as a learning tool in his classroom. Couse and Chen (2010) also support this notion by citing a 2002 article by Clements and Sarama stating, “Today, the question that educators ask is no longer about whether and to what extent technology should be used with young children in the classroom, but rather how it should be used.” The ideas seem to suggest that educators need to be prepared to effectively operate and use new technologies in a classroom filled with tech-savvy students. Educators must be familiar with a variety of software applications which may or may not be specifically designed for educational use but can be applied to teaching and learning. They should be prepared to operate within a collaborative teaching and learning environment using a variety of tools from smartphones to tablet PCs. ** Cloud Technology Introduction ** Mobile technology is not only transforming the way we access the internet and utilize its resources but also the way we store data and applications, share information, and collaborate in real time, this is known as cloud computing. Other, more specific, definitions of cloud computing exists but all focus in or around the concepts of collaboration, access, and storage. As such, this technology allows for the efficient use of computing resources by storing data and applications in a centralized location. This data can be retrieved, edited, and shared by others encouraging collaboration of ideas and people. The ramifications of cloud technology and its usage are seen daily in the emergence of netbook computers, tablets, and other mobile devices with much less capacity but much the same capability as laptop and desktop computers.

** Going Mainstream: Popular Usage and Applications ** Diaz (2011) describes cloud technology as “a term that refers to the vast array of socially oriented, free or nearly free, web-based tools”. Many familiar objects used today are products of cloud technology research and development. Popular online productivity tools such as Google Docs and Microsoft Office Web Apps are used to create documents collaboratively. These tools are free to use and allow for collaboration of documents and other projects among any number of team members using it. The most obvious advantages to using this application are the cost and accessibility. For any member of a team that does not have personal access to popular word processing tools currently used by their peers, they can utilize online resources and maintain input. The most frequently mentioned disadvantage found is the ability to format and edit specific features. Some prefer the ease of formatting and editing that is found with installed computer software. While that is a consideration, it is not a significant one when the advantages of cloud technology are put forth, especially in a business or educational setting.

Other cloud-based applications, such as Pixlr, allow software to be used without installing it on a user’s computer. Programs such as this run off the internet and do not need to be downloaded and installed onto an individual users computing device. Data storage programs like My Dropbox allow users to transfer and access documents and data onto multiple devices through synchronizing data desired from one computer to the Dropbox folder on another. They can be accessed offline and sync automatically. This astounding progression in accessibility is increasing and changing rapidly, as is the need for training and research in effective usage of this cloud technology in the home, in business, and in the classroom.

** Cloud Technology: Research and Development towards Education ** Currently many technological devices incorporate the use of cloud technology and many application and computing device creators are using cloud technologies to guide their research models. Siegle (2010) suggests that many of the mainstream computer developers currently on the market are using the creation of cloud technology software and applications to give free access to programs and tools that many educators and students may not have the resources to own or utilize. He found that cloud technology can be easily integrated into the educational system and training for faculty, staff, and students should begin now to encourage usage when it is readily available for all. Within his literature he suggests the usage of cloud technology in education is not only financially advantageous but also that it encourages much needed motivation to work together and collaborate on projects regardless of many common barriers in the classroom such as socioeconomic factors or location. It is also believed that within the near future, cloud technology will be the common computing platform for software and users will pay a small fee to utilize the service. While some services are already moving towards this model, many are still free for usage with ad banners and other income producing applications included with the product. The underlying message however is, as Siegle (2011) states, “The world of cloud computing is changing daily”. In order to keep in front of the change educators and school systems need to embrace this technology.

Diaz (2010) disagrees and feels that cloud technology has “widened the gap between faculty member and student use of technology and has also presented some support and faculty development difficulties”. While implementation is said to be the most difficult part of using cloud technology in educational settings; Diaz found the two most common obstacles to overcome for implementation are volume and design. The sheer volume of Web 2.0 tools caused an inability for users to accurately search for and utilize the tool they want. Most users in an educational system are not familiar with bringing technology into the classroom and even fewer are comfortable with Web 2.0 vernacular. Without a strong understanding for the Web 2.0 type and purpose, it is near impossible for someone to find the proper tool for their instructional goal. The table below explains briefly a common way Web 2.0 tools are classified.

Table 1: Classification of Web 2.0 Tools (Diaz, 2011, p. 97) Although there are types of Web 2.0 tools that can be used in educational systems if properly applied, it is important to remember that the primary design function of most, if not all, Web 2.0 tools is not higher education or course management systems. The commercial products on the market used in learning management systems (LMS) products are user-friendly but tend to limit the user to specific changes to the application. Along with this limitation is the consistently rising cost of these commercial products. This rise in cost has led to the increase in use of open-source products and Web 2.0 tools.
 * Web 2.0 Type || Instructional Purpose || Examples ||
 * Communicative || Share ideas, information, and creations || Blogs (Audio/Video), Podcasts, Chat ||
 * Collaborative || Work with others for a specific purpose in a shared work area || Word processors/tools, Wikis ||
 * Documentative || Collect and/or present thinking over time || Blogs, E-portfolios, Wikis ||
 * Generative || Create something new that can be seen and/or used by others || Mashups, Virtual Learning Worlds ||
 * Interactive || Exchange information, ideas, resources, materials || Learning objectives, Social bookmarking, Virtual worlds ||

** Implementation and Current Themes in Education ** The inherent nature of cloud technology supports the overwhelming need for training for educators and learners. Web-based tools are like any other technological tool and need to be approached with a willingness to learn how to effective utilize the tool. In order for cloud technology to be successfully implemented in any educational system proper training and technological tools, need to be in place.

The most common current theme in education is the use of mobile technology and cloud technology. Many considerations need to be addressed such as finances, training and professional development, and safety and privacy legalities. Students are being given technology to use, such as tablets and other mobile devices, to use in the classroom. Educators are being asked to incorporate an increasing amount of technology into their teachings.

media type="youtube" key="ZyQER1jLDwQ?version=3" height="315" width="420" align="center"

**Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge** Tablet technology, mobile technology, and cloud technology each and collectively appear to be very promising tools for technology integration into instructional delivery methods educators employ. Their placement in the educational programs schools offer will signal intent on the part of the schools that they are cognitive of the technologies being utilized in the world outside of the classroom, but there needs to be a bridge for educators to be able to make the crossover into effective instructional technology integration. Pre-service and in-service professional development training with the conceptual framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge may prove to be the very bridge educators need constructed on their behalf and for the benefit of student learning.

Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) is the creative framework of Mishra and Koehler and is the continuation of the Shulman’s notion of pedagogical content knowledge. The work of Shulman is considered to have “revolutionized our understanding of teacher knowledge and its development” (Harris & Hofer, 2011), and TPACK has proven in its limited time in the field to be equally revolutionary in its shaping the educational technology landscape. Though the theory’s introduction dates back to 2006 (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), the recognition given by those in the field of educational technology and those who research such topics has been considerable for the limited time it has been available, as the literature to be reviewed will indicate.

As mentioned, Mishra and Koehler introduced TPACK as a theory in 2006 in their paper Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Alerting the reader, the authors signal this theory’s foundations represent the culmination of five years of work “conducting a design experiment aimed at helping us understand teachers’ development toward rich uses of technology while simultaneously helping teachers—both K–12 teachers and university faculty—develop their teaching with technology” (pg. 1019). Subsequent work by the researchers collaboratively and with additional researchers have yielded further development of the theory, preliminary research, and instruments to measure each of the domains within TPACK as well as on a holistic sense. A review of these works will be documented below.

Image: http://tpack.org/ **Initial Research for TPACK** Being such a new conceptual framework in the field of educational technology and within the professional development of educators, the existing trend is one of discovery. When Mishra and Koehler introduced this framework in 2006, the trend within education was “to only look at technology and not how it is used” (pg. 1018), which they argued was not enough. As a result, the research they began focused primarily on “studying //how// the technology is used” (pg. 1018). To accomplish this feat, the authors start “to develop and identify themes and constructs that would apply across diverse cases and examples of practice” (pg. 1018). This last statement is what drives much of the current research and practices that will be discussed in this review.

The research on TPACK is fresh in large part due to its novelty but equally so it is limited for the same reason. What research that does exist is focused in two primary areas. The first of these areas focuses on developing the constructs through professional development models within the pre-service and in-service components of educational training. Constructing effective ways to build and then blend the technological knowledge into the existing pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge is a primary aim and subsequent studies reflect that aim.

Professional development models have sought to give educators training to meet new pedagogical approaches, to introduce new content standards, or to “merely introduce technology to the educational process” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). The professional development models in the studies to be highlighted here seek to develop themes and constructs that can be applied toward the development of the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge of the subjects receiving the training. One such study that mirrors this attempt is Jang and Chen (2010) whose subjects were pre-service science teachers. The professional development model here sought to impact pre-service teachers’ TPACK through integrating technology with peer coaching. This transformative approach allows the pre-service educators to imitate by observing mentors. This imitating or “vicarious learning” (pg. 561) is considered by the researchers to be appropriate because the subjects have no real teaching experience and would have no tangible framework to connect the three knowledges on their own. It is important to note the learning trajectories for TPACK is going to tend to be upward, as this study shows because of the newness of technologies in education that are interactive and can contribute directly to learning.
 * Professional Development**

The idea of learning trajectories and TPACK forms the foundation for another professional development focused research study led by doctoral students at Michigan State University and Hartman. Thirteen fifth and sixth grade educators participate in a seven-month program that allows teachers to self-select projects to implement into their teaching in the upcoming school year. The educators work to integrate technology into their content and teaching approaches with collaborative assistance from the university-based partner. The research study seeks to answer what initial learning trajectories do teacher move through, what influences their movement, and what experiences contribute to that movement as technology is integrated into the curriculum and teaching. Results show an interestingly accumulative trajectory in deepening the understanding of the complexity of interactions of the knowledges over the course of learning, planning, and implementing (Morsink et al., 2011). All participants’ initial learning trajectories “climbed” but their progression is not strictly linear (pg. 14). Climbs and declines along with plateaus mark each participants learning path. Similarly, the participants each share a common belief that “developing expertise…is a time-consuming, long-term process” and “none described themselves as TPACK experts” as a byproduct of their participation in the project (pg. 14).

The theme can also be seen in the results of a study conducted by Harris and Hofer (2011), who sought to see how TPACK changes for a small sample of social studies teachers after experiencing a TPACK-based professional development program. Their five-month long professional development regiment focuses on the instructional planning of technology-supported learning activity types. TPACK did change over time as a result of teachers becoming more aware of needing to think “more consciously and strategically” and getting themselves out of a rut (pg. 225). Teachers also comment how their teaching is “enhanced” while the researchers note that teachers are better able to “diversify their instructional approaches” (pg. 226). This enhancement idea is also supported in research findings of Archambault, Wetzel, Foulger, and Williams (2010) and Allan, Erickson, Brookhouse, and Johnson (2010). For Allan et al., teachers show gains in their technology skills, knowledge growth and positive changes in pedagogical approaches, increased content knowledge as a result of their participation in the collaborative curriculum development-focused professional development program (pg. 42). Similarly, the college instructors in the Archambault, Wetzel, Foulger, and Williams’ study demonstrate a shift into their pedagogical practices to more of a facilitator as a result of the technology-focused professional development program (pg. 10).

The other pronounced area of research is working to create and apply valid, reliable research instruments to statistically define the degree and relationship of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge holistically as well as each domain within the framework. “Understanding that teaching is a highly complex activity that draws on many kinds of knowledge” (Mishra and Koehler, pg. 1020) researchers seek to develop an instrument that will capture the unique knowledge domains that are included within TPACK (Schmidt, Baran, Thompson, Mishra, Koehler, and Shin, 2009; Koh, Chai, and Tsait, 2010); and Archambault and Crippen, 2009).
 * Developing the Instruments to Measure TPACK**

Continuing the focus on pre-service teacher perceptions, Koh, Chai, and Tsait (2010) survey 1185 pre-service Singaporean teachers with a modified version of the instrument developed by Schmidt et al. (2009). Their final version of the survey supports the internal reliability of the TPACK survey items as well as the construct validity for technological knowledge and content knowledge. Where their findings differ is in regards to the other domains, which results in their modifying of the other domains. The conclusions Koh, Chai, and Tsait make point back to those of Archambault and Crippen that the framework itself may need more clearly defined distinctions between the domain constructs (pg. 570). They do note that it may another factor exists that pre-service lack the experience needed to understand reasonably enough to give researchers what the survey asks and that “exemplary technology integrators” may be better subjects for such surveys (pg. 570).

**Discussion for Training for Sharing**

The ideas embedded in any professional development training or technology-focused roll-out should understand and incorporate the two as one unit rather than be viewed as two separate components. Just as putting a new laser in the hands of an ophthalmologist's without proper training before use to surgically correct an eye problem would seem recklessly foolish, the same is true for having a school system give educators a new technology tool without proper training. However, truly effective integration is birthed by educators having a “more consciously and strategically” knowing of what they need to know to incorporate technology in a pedagogically sound manner that meshes well with the content to be learned. Whether it is any Web 2.0 tool, mobile devices such as tablets, or utilizing cloud-based technologies, educators must have professional development that centers on the understanding that the knowledge domains do and must be interactive to be optimized. Where Web 1.0 had users limited to being consumers of content and Web 2.0 opened up the web to allowing users to both consume and produce content, professional development needs to follow. Archambault, Wetzel, Foulger, and Williams (2010) share the results of such a transformation of professional development to a 2.0 model. The results of interactive professional development model show both progressing shifts in the knowledge domains of TPACK and positive impacts on student achievement and the roles instructors having in teaching and learning. Namely, pedagogically, instructors moved into a more pronounced role of facilitator of learning while students were taking on greater responsibility for their own learning and acting with greater collaboration (pg. 9). This teaching-learning model becomes available to educators who receive the professional development training necessary to effectively activate such learner-focused learning environments. Gone are the classrooms where the instructor dispenses knowledge and students just consume knowledge as was the case in Web 1.0 times. In the Web 2.0-rich learning environment where students can consume and produce knowledge, technology has a central role. No longer can educators be trained to use a document camera to share content or a social networking tools to post content. Educators need to know how to use any technology tool to meet the objectives of Mishra and Koehler (2006) where educators would be successful in applying technology "across diverse //contents// and examples of practice" (pg. 1018, italics show word substitution by authors).

**Conclusion**

The research conducted for this review seems to demonstrate an overall apprehension towards effective implementation of technology for teaching and learning. These apprehensions seem to point at two distinct areas of concern, the development of technologies to meet the needs and demands of the education community and the academic and professional development of those expected to use these technologies for teaching or learning. The review of the literature points to a growing segment of educator who recognizes not only the potential for using innovative technologies for education, but also the demand that already exists amongst the current generation of tech savvy students. Often times, computer technologies seem to make giant leaps forward while leaving wide gaps in developed software to support the new capabilities available with each leap. Over time, software development regains pace with the hardware. Following the same pattern is the development of the human component. The persons who are required to utilize new technologies may be lacking the necessary training and skills to effectively use them for teaching and learning. This may be a result of pre-service or in-service training shortfalls which can leave educators lagging behind their own students in technical capability. The vast reach of emerging technologies like tablets PCs and cloud technologies have created an expectation for ubiquitous and collaborative learning environment. Professional development programs hold the key to preparing educators to use innovative methods and technologies to improve academic success, decrease the digital divide, prepare students to effectively use technology beyond the classroom, and transforming the overall quality of education. As a result, training for sharing is the concept of continuous education for the educator to keep pace with ever-changing and innovative learning environment.

**References** Adiguzel, T., Capraro, R. M., & Willson, V. L. (2011). An examination of teacher acceptance of handheld computers. //International Journal of Special Education, 26//(3), 12-27.

Allan, W. C., Erickson, J. L., Brookhouse, P., & Johnson, J. L. (2010). Teacher professional development throug a collaborative curriculum project - an example of tpack in maine. //TechTrends//: //Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning,// //54//(6), 36-43.

Archambault, L. & Crippen, K. (2009). Examining TPACK among K-12 online distance educators in the United States. //Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. 9//(1), 71-88.

Archambault, L., Wetzel, K., Foulger, T. S., & Williams, M. K. (2010). Professional development 2.0: Transforming education pedagogy with 21st century tools. J//ournal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 27//(1), 4-11.

Bonk, C. (2009). The world is open: How web technology is revolutionizing education. CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H., & Tsai, C. -C. (2010). Facilitating preservice teachers' development of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK). //Educational Technology & Society//, //13//(4), 63-73.

Couse, L. J., & Chen, D. W. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability for early childhood education. //Journal Of Research On Technology In Education, 43//(1), 75-98.

Diaz, V. (2011). Cloud-based technologies: faculty development, support, and implementation. //Journal of Asynchronous Learning, 15//(1), 95-102.

Emery, J. (2010). Something so right. //Journal Of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 22//(3-4), 88-92.

Enriquez, A. G. (2010). Enhancing student performance using tablet computers. //College Teaching, 58//(3), 77-84.

Franklin, T. (2011). Mobile learning: at the tipping point. T//he Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10//(4), 261-275.

Harmon, J. (2012, Jun. - Jul.). Unlock literacy with ipads. //Learning and Leading, 39//(8), 30-31. Retrieved May 30, 2012, from []

Harris, J. B. & Hofer, M. J. (2011). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in action: A descriptive study of secondary teachers' curriculum-based, technology-related instructional planning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 43(3), 211-229.

Jang, S. J., & Chen, K. C. (2010). From PCK to TPACK: Developing a transformative model for pre-service science teachers. //Journal of Science Education & Technology//, //19//, 553-564. doi:10.1007/s10956-010-9222-y

Keskin, N. O. (2011). The current perspectives, theories, and practices of mobile learning. //Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10//(2), 202-208.

Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., & Tsait, C. C. (2010). Examining the technological content knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey. //Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26,// 563-573.

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). [| Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge]. //Teachers College Record, 108//(6), 1017-1054.

Moran, M., Hawkes, M., & El Gayar, O. (2010). Tablet personal computer integration in higher education: Applying the unified theory of acceptance and use technology model to understand supporting factors. J//ournal Of Educational Computing Research, 42//(1), 79-101.

Morsink, P. M., Hagerman, M., Heintz, A., Boyer, D., Harris, R., Kereluik, K., Hartman, D. K. (2011). Professional development to support tpack technology integration: The initial learning trajectories of thirteen fifth- and sixth-grade educators. //Journal Of Education, 191(//2), 3-16.

Murray, O. T., & Olcese, N. R. (2011). Teaching and learning with ipads, Ready or Not?. //Techtrends: Linking Research And Practice To Improve Learning, 55//(6), 42-48.

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. //Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 42//(2), 123-149.

Shih, C. K., & Waugh, M. (2011). Web 2.0 tools for learning in higher education: the presence of blogs, wikis, podcasts, microblogs, Facebook, and Ning. //Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education//.

Siegle, D. (2010). Cloud computing: a free technology option to promote collaborative learning. //Gifted Child Today, 33//(4), 41-45.

Tablet computer Definition from PC Magazine Encyclopedia. (n.d.). Technology Product Reviews, News, Prices & Downloads | PCMag.com | PC Magazine. Retrieved June 9, 2012, from []

Wright, S., & Parchoma, G. (2011). Technologies for learning? An actor-network theory critique of 'affordances' in research on mobile learning. //Research in Learning Technology, 19//(3), 247-258.

**Final Exam Questions:**
 * 1) Which of the following is not a classification of a Web 2.0 tool?
 * 2) Communicative
 * 3) Generative
 * 4) Descriptive
 * 5) Interactive
 * 6) What is TPACK and what is its ultimate goal?
 * 7) A suggested challenge involving tablet technology is:
 * 8) product cost versus resources available
 * 9) adequate and relevant supporting software
 * 10) availability of the product
 * 11) available user capabilities
 * 12) One of the biggest challenges facing cloud technology implementation in educational settings according to Diaz is:
 * 13) the lack of Web 2.0 tools that conform to needs in education
 * 14) a decrease in need for cloud technology and Web 2.0 tools
 * 15) the sheer volume of Web 2.0 tools available
 * 16) the absence of desire to utilize technology in the classroom
 * 17) Educators need to receive training in the use of emergining technologies such as tablets and cloud technology during:
 * 18) In-service
 * 19) Pre-service
 * 20) Both
 * 21) Neither