25 Responses to “”Leave a Reply |
DET580411
Issues & innovations in Educational Technology
Hosted by Edublogs.
Mandigo theme by tom.
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
elearning will help the students to become active learners25 Responses to “”Leave a Reply |
Hosted by Edublogs.
Mandigo theme by tom.
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
February 25th, 2007 at 2:45 am
this is to test the posting
February 26th, 2007 at 2:33 am
Conference Information
World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (ELEARN) 2003
Phoenix, Arizona, USA 2003
Griff Richards
AACE
More Information on ELEARN
Table of Contents
Author
Hong Zhan, Northern Arizona University, USA
Abstract
This paper describes special characteristics and defines critical issues of E-learning in China, an emerging country in the world. E-learning in China initially developed from cooperative work with leading foreign companies in the field of informational technology. Since 1999, E-learning in China has rapidly developed as a new educational model and has formed its own online educational system from infrastructures to online teaching framework. However, many critical issues, such as the lack of technology training for teachers and unsystematic online teaching evaluation methods, are found in the rapid development process. If these issues are not included in the agenda of E-learning, they will influence the quality and the future development of E-learning in China.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:36 am
Contents
Issue
Context
Technology and Youth: Wired Schools and Wired Lives
NCLB and High Stakes Testing
Student Skills and ITC Literacy: Meeting the 21st Century Challenge
Different Types of Technology and their Educational Applications
February 26th, 2007 at 2:41 am
Issues and Innovation in Educational Tecnology
Introduction of Educational Technology The introduction and application of educational technologies in higher education institutions seems to have a lot to do with individual departments or organisations backing a hunch, taking a risk, or striving for a market advantage, given the findings of the study by Tinkler et al (1994). Their study “Effectiveness and Potential of State of the Art Technologies in the Delivery of Higher Education”, In spite of efforts to identify costs associated with implementation of new technologies, the goal proved elusive in the extreme …Not only did the questionnaires fail to elicit the requested information, but attempts to establish data regarding costs during visits to institutions proved generally unsuccessful. As to cost comparisons between conventional delivery approaches and those involving state-of-the-art technologies, it appeared that few of the people approached had given any consideration to such detail. (p.122) As for the planning behind educational technology innovations, they commented that enthusiasm was sometimes the main rationale for a project: Some of the interesting and exciting initiatives investigated during the consultancy were started simply by pulling out of, say, the physics department, a computer enthusiast and setting that person up with laboratory space and a small budget and telling them to work at becoming self-funding within a specified number of years. There, they beavered away by trial and error to produce niche application of technology. (Tinkler et al 1994, p.37) This description of the computer enthusiast beavering away is a reminder of the debate which is often heard regarding the process of innovation. Some commentators argue the merits of giving creative staff members the freedom to be inventive, of letting a ‘thousand flowers bloom’ and hoping that a few of the flowers will become viable long term propositions. Other commentators argue that unless the innovation is carefully thought through and part of a comprehensive plan, it will wither on the vine. Tinkler et al (1994) point out that innovators need a supportive culture if the initiative is to survive: Much of the early work in adapting technology for delivery of educational programs appears to have been to fill a particular educational need identified by an enthusiast. This so called ‘niche application’ by the pioneers in the use of technology was achieved at very low cost in money terms, even though the cost in terms of hours worked might have been quite excessive. Where the innovation occurred in a supportive culture and official funding was attracted, the venture expanded into a fully developed project. Where the activity was generated in a non-supported organisational climate, (the) initiative withered and eventually collapsed. commenting specifically on satellite projects, believes that projects may need up to ten years to prove viable. In the first three to ten years, a project will be characterised by negotiations, problems which may never be resolved and the need for external assistance. Most satellite projects seemed to have gone through a number of similar stages: 1. the first is a relatively short demonstration project, often supported by external technical assistance. 2. Then follows a longer period of political negotiation, planning and technical feasibility studies. This period may last from three to even 10 years. 3. There then follows the initial operation of the system, usually beset by technical problems which are quickly resolved, and more serious management and educational problems, some of which may never get resolved. It is at this stage that it may become clear that a number of programmes or goals within the project are not viable. During this period, external technical assistance and consultancies are particularly helpful. This last stage sees the project settling down to a fully operational and effective system, financed and run locally. (p.39) This sequence of trial and error, of stops and starts, interventions and setbacks and successes and failures described by Bates corresponds to the impression gained by Tinkler et al (1994) in their investigation of innovations in the Australian higher education sector. Overseas and Australian innovative projects in delivery systems would seem to have one particular feature in common: insufficient information on costs.
http://www.hi.is/~joner/eaps/WH_DE_Cost8.htm
Amna Abdullah
200520548
February 26th, 2007 at 2:41 am
For decades companies have struggled with the real costs, benefits, and return-on-investment of training. Now that e-learning and blended learning has become a major new initiative, even more investment is needed in the training organization. Using new tools and technology now available, is it finally time for companies to truly apply business analytics to understand the activity, effectiveness, and impact of e-learning and training? The answer is, of course, yes. Enter analytics. Here’s what leading companies and suppliers are doing to make training analytics a reality.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:42 am
E-learning has moved through a number of distinct phases – from Computer Based Training through to Learning Management Systems and Courseware Management Systems to now encompass an increasingly broad scope of applications and activity. There are a number of factors worth noting in terms of mapping the evolving e-learning landscape
February 26th, 2007 at 2:44 am
The take up of e-learning standards to some extent is assisted by government policy. Some jurisdictions are either legislating or have policy mandates for the adoption of standards for e-learning itself or areas that impact directly on e-learning developments such as accessibility.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:45 am
ISSUE: To realize the benefits of technology, schools must develop a plan for integrating technology into the curriculum. An effective technology plan is based on the shared vision of educators, parents, community members, and business leaders who have technological expertise. It ensures that technology strengthens existing curricula and supports meaningful, engaged learning for all students. It also specifies how the technology will be paid for and how its use will be supported.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:53 am
Findings and Recommendations
In the end, student access to online courses will be determined by local decisions that must be made by education administrators and policy leaders everywhere. These decisions will affect whether or not specific virtual courses will be approved (or afforded) for individual students who have particular rationales and reasons for requesting enrollment in online classes. In some cases, this situation may contribute to lower enrollment in regularly offered on-site classes, lower daily attendance, and shrinking instructional loads—with negative impacts for staffing and personnel budgets.
The following findings and recommendations offer some next steps for state and local policymakers and education leaders.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:55 am
I hope that by presenting various dimensions of the framework, I have provided a sketch of what it takes to create meaningful e-learning environments. I believe various issues within the eight dimensions of the framework can provide guidance in the planning, design, development, delivery, evaluation and implementation of e-learning environments. Various sub-dimensions discussed within the eight dimensions of the framework are by no means complete. I welcome comments and suggestions for improvement (http://www.bookstoread.com/framework/
February 26th, 2007 at 2:56 am
Corporations invest large amounts of money, resources, and time in training. According to the 2002 ASTD State of the Industry Report, which surveyed more than 375 major corporations, companies spend between one and three percent of their total payroll on training. On a per-person basis, the average spent on training is more than US$700 per employee per year, and in the leading-edge companies, that figure doubles to more than $1400 per employee per year.
Across a large enterprise, these numbers can become staggering. In 2001, for example, the average profitability of the S&P 500 companies was less than nine percent. If training expense is viewed as a percent of profits, the training budget represent as much as five-20 percent of total corporate profits.
“In today’s results-oriented business climate, it’s more important than ever for trainers to demonstrate to management the value and return on investment we bring to the organization. This means creating programs and initiatives clearly linked to overarching business objectives — and having effective tools in place to measure their success,” says Whitney Shelley, director of learning and development for Kinko’s.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:56 am
Emerging digital technologies and increasing interest in the computerized delivery of higher education have led to e-learning through electronic mail, the Internet, the World Wide Web (WWW), and multimedia. Issues such as the confidence with which college faculty integrate technology in their teaching, plagiarism and communication remain as important unresolved questions. Considering these, the marketplace of learners is not responding to e-learning as anticipated. Understanding the importance of information systems, and of efforts to ensure that faculty use technology, as well as recognition of the marketplace, a framework has been developed for success with e-learning. Reviews the selected definitions of e-learning. A critical review of literature is provided with a view to developing a more practical framework for achieving success in e-learning. Also, some reported case experiences are briefly discussed. Suggestions for future research are presented.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:05 am
Abstract
It is often emphasized, that the main advantage of e-learning is independence of both location and time. However, in traditional e-learning the minimum requirement is still a personal computer (PC)—consequently an absolute independence in location is not provided. These independencies are still not fulfilled with the use of notebooks because a real independency in location depends on the rapid advancement and affordability of the necessary technology. This problem could be solved by using highly mobile and available devices Such as mobile phones. For example, the market saturation of mobile phones in Austria is currently at a level of 81 percent and the numbers are still increasing. Since the majority of students at both secondary schools and universities have a mobile phone at hand most of the time, mobile learning (m-learning) could be an important instrument for assisting learning in future.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:09 am
Learning Point Associates
We’re Sorry
The resource you are looking for is no longer available because it is either outdated or has been replaced. It was developed by the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory® (NCREL®), and the five-year federal contract to operate NCREL ended in 2005. Many of the resources developed under this contract remain accessible through the Learning Point Associates website. You may contact us with questions or to inquire about resources you may need in your education work.
The U.S. Department of Education has awarded Learning Point Associates its fifth consecutive contract to operate a regional educational laboratory—this time called REL Midwest instead of the North Central—a new name for a new scope of work. Details about the new work to be conducted by all 10 regional educational laboratories will be available in the coming months on a Regional Educational Laboratory Network website.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:12 am
Promoting Appropriate Uses of Technology in Mathematics Teacher Preparation
Joe Garofalo , Hollylynne Stohl Drier , Suzanne Harper , and
Maria A. Timmerman, University of Virginia
Tod Shockey, University of Wisconsin—Stevens Point
In the Principles and Standards of School Mathematics the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) identified the “Technology Principle” as one of six principles of high quality mathematics education (NCTM, 2000). This principle states: “Technology is essential in teaching and learning mathematics; it influences the mathematics that is taught and enhances students’ learning” (p. 24). There is widespread agreement that mathematics teachers, not technological tools, are the key change agents to bringing about reform in mathematics teaching with technology (Kaput, 1992; NCTM 1991, 2000). Yet, preparing teachers to use technology appropriately is a complex task for teacher educators (Mergendoller, 1994). Waits and Demana (2000) argue that adoption of technology by teachers requires professional development that focuses on both conceptual and pedagogical issues, ongoing support in terms of “intensive start-up assistance and regular follow-up activities” and a desire to change from within the profession (p. 53). In addition, studies of teachers’ implementation of educational technology document that at least three to five years are needed for teachers to become competent and confident in teaching with technology (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1991; Means & Olson, 1994).
The Curry Center for Technology and Teacher Education at the University of Virginia is developing materials to help preservice secondary mathematics, social studies, and science teachers (PSTs) learn to incorporate technology appropriately into their teaching. The focus of the mathematics team is to devise activities that will prepare secondary teachers to use technology to enhance and extend their students’ learning of mathematics. In this article we discuss the approach to developing and using materials for this purpose.
Use of Technology in Teacher Education
Technology is being incorporated into teacher education in numerous ways. Not surprisingly, there are different ways to categorize the various approaches taken by teacher educators to bring technology into their programs. One way to categorize these approaches is according to the primary user or controller of the technology—the teacher educator, the teacher, or the student. In some uses of technology in teacher education, the teacher educator is the primary user of the technology. For example, some teacher educators use multi-media case studies of rich teaching episodes to help PSTs analyze teaching and learning environments, and some use technology to present information or to demonstrate explorations. In many teacher education programs the teacher is being prepared to be the primary user of technology. For example, PSTs are being prepared to use technology productivity tools for word processing, grade and record keeping, web page production, and presentations. Also, many PSTs are using subject-specific software and websites to create presentations, lectures, lessons, and assessments. A third approach to incorporating technology in teacher education is to prepare PSTs to have their future students use technology to investigate concepts and solve meaningful problems in the content areas. For example, in the area of mathematics, PSTs are learning how to guide their students to use technologies such as spreadsheets, graphing calculators, dynamic geometry programs, and playable websites to explore mathematics concepts and use mathematics to solve problems in applied contexts.
The three uses of technology in teacher education presented above are connected with different purposes and all can lead to better teacher effectiveness and improved student learning. Thus, all are important. However, it has been our experience that the most direct and effective way to use technology to bring about enhanced student learning of mathematics is to prepare PSTs to incorporate into their teaching an array of activities that engage students in mathematical thinking facilitated by technological tools. Hence, in our preparation of secondary PSTs we emphasize the third use, in which ultimately the student is the primary user, and to some degree, the second use, in which the teacher is the primary user. Our materials reflect these emphases and thus are being developed around significant mathematical activities for school students.
In our classes, PSTs complete activities that, with some modification, are appropriate for secondary mathematics courses. We then use these completed activities to anchor class discussions of issues connected with secondary curriculum and instruction, national and state standards, sequencing of topics, the role of technology, and assessment. In the course of completing these activities, PSTs not only learn how to use the technology, but also how to incorporate technology into their teaching.
Guidelines for Technology-Based Activity Development
In the early phase of our work, we devised a set of guidelines to shape our development of mathematics activities and materials (Garofalo, Shockey, Harper, & Drier, 1999). The five guidelines below reflect what we believe to be appropriate uses of technology in mathematics teaching:
introduce technology in context
address worthwhile mathematics with appropriate pedagogy
take advantage of technology
connect mathematics topics
incorporate multiple representations
Each of these guidelines is discussed below and illustrated with one or more of our activities.
Introduce Technology in Context
Features of technology, whether mathematics-specific or more generic, should be introduced and illustrated in the context of meaningful content-based activities. Teaching a set of technology or software-based skills and then trying to find mathematical topics for which they might be useful is comparable to teaching a set of procedural mathematical skills and then giving a collection of “word problems” to solve using the procedures. Such an approach can obscure the purpose of learning and using technology, make mathematics appear as an afterthought, and lead to contrived activities. The use of technology in mathematics teaching is not for the purpose of teaching about technology, but for the purpose of enhancing mathematics teaching and learning with technology. Furthermore, in our experience, teachers who learn to use technology while exploring relevant mathematics topics are more likely to see its potential benefits and use it in their subsequent teaching. This guideline is in accord with the first recommendation of the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Panel on Educational Technology (1997): “Focus on learning with technology, not about technology
February 26th, 2007 at 3:16 am
E-learning is becoming an increasingly popular form of teaching. In addition to blended learning, universities offer courses as distance learning (DL). In some countries such as Australia DL is essential because of the vast distances. In other countries DL is used because it allows universities to reach a larger audience to drive down the cost of e-learning content per student. Assessment is an important part of teaching because it has two functions.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:17 am
On May 25, 2005 a seminar “Innovational planning and development of technoparks in the Russian Federation” was held. The seminar was organized by Russian-European Centre for Economic Policy (RECEP) in association with the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations of the Moscow region and with the support of other subordinate organizations within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Information Technologies and Communications of the Russian Federation acting as beneficiary of the currently implemented project on shaping the technical policy of creation of technoparks in the Russian Federation. The seminar brought together executives of the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations of the Moscow region, the Ministry of Transport of the Moscow region, heads of municipalities, representatives of Russian science and business circles, foreign experts.
Program of the seminar and a list of participants is enclosed herewith.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:23 am
Designing meaningful e-learning requires thoughtful analysis and investigation of how to use the learning technologies’ potential in concert with instructional design principles and issues critical to various dimensions of e-learning environment. The field of Instructional Design (ID) benefits from both learning theories and instructional design theories. Learning theories are descriptive-describe how learning occurs. Instructional design theories are prescriptive in nature-concern with what methods of instruction should be used. Since 1997, I researched what it takes to create open and distributed e-learning and found that ID alone cannot do the job, it basically concerns with only two dimensions (i.e., pedagogy and evaluation) out of the eight dimensions of issues:
February 26th, 2007 at 3:29 am
If We Didn’t Have the Schools We Have Today, Would We Create the Schools We Have Today?
Thomas G. Carroll
U.S. Department of Education
We have a unique opportunity in education today. Massive funds are pouring into the technology infrastructure of K-12 schools. It is estimated that $7 billion a year is being spent to equip schools with infrastructure, networking activities, and hardware.
The investment of resources on this scale is comparable to the space program. The process of building this infrastructure is similar to launching a rocket in education. Now that we have launched that rocket, we must learn to fly. That may seem backwards, but it is often the ways things work.
When the Wright brothers were going to make the first flight, there was no flight school to prepare them. There was nobody to teach them to fly. They just launched their plane and figured out how to fly it after they were on it. We are in the early stages of flight with technology in education. Pilots in the early stages of flight crashed a lot of planes, but they also discovered the principles of flight. They came together in learning communities where they could share their experiences and knowledge about what works and what does not work. They developed and evolved principles that make modern flight possible today, including the space program. That kind of learning opportunity is available to us in our schools today.
“If We Didn’t Have Today’s Schools, Would We Create Today’s Schools?”
The question in the title of this article is a trick question, because I want readers to really think about it. “If we didn’t have today’s schools, would we create today’s schools?” And the trick is, if you wouldn’t create today’s schools, what are you doing about it? If we continue to prepare teachers as we have always prepared them, we are going to continue to recreate the schools we have always had. We have to start preparing teachers differently. If we are going to continue preparing educators to work as solo, stand-alone teachers in self-contained, isolated classrooms, we are going to perpetuate the schools we have today. If we want schools to be different, we must start today to prepare teachers differently… si gnificantly differently.
If a surgeon from the 1800s walked into an operating room today where arthroscopic surgery was being performed, could that surgeon step in and perform the surgery? No way. The surgeon would not even understand what the procedure was, would not understand what the instruments were, and would be totally lost about what was going on.
But if a teacher from the 1800s walked into a classroom today, could he or she substitute as a teacher? If so, why would that be possible? Perhaps the educators of the 1800s were able to anticipate the needs of the 21 st century and designed a system that perfectly fits our educational purposes today. The other possibility is that our industrial era schools have not changed to keep pace with our current understanding of cognition and learning. If this system of factory era schooling does not meet the needs of today’s learners and the demands of our information age economy, we have a problem. If we have a system that does not fit our needs anymore, we must begin thinking about how to transform the educational system we have.
Papert (1996) has suggested that another way to think about this question is to ask, “If the changes in education over the last 100 years had been as dramatic as the changes in medicine over that time, what would our schools look like today?”
If we start to push our thinking about what the educational system could become, we begin to get some idea of the opportunities before us and the work required to realize those possibilities.
Can Technology Be Used to Improve Education?
When asked whether technology can be used to improve education, education reformers will answer, “Yes. Computers can be used to improve schools.” Most often the reformers are talking about using computers within the context of the schools as they are today ¾ making refinements, tinkering with the schools we have, but not transforming them to meet the needs of 21 st century learners and our new knowledge-based economy.
Critics—cybercynics—say, “We don’t need computers in schools. Learning is best done through face-to-face interaction without these technologies (especially in early grades), and we don’t need computers to improve education in our schools today.”
The cyberprophets say that, with networked computers, we do not need schools. I am not prepared to say that we do not need schools. Anyone who thinks we do not need schools does not have children. I have children. They are grown now. But when they were younger, and I was at work, they were in school. Children have to be supervised in a safe place that is structured to support learning. I believe that in the near future the places where children will learn are not going to look anything like the schools we have today.
Networked Learning Communities
For now, I am calling these new places Networked Learning Communities. Institutions similar to schools may serve as organizational nodes in these learning communities (along with libraries and community centers, museums and colleges, and homes and workplaces, among others). But most schools and classrooms will no longer be the central learning hubs they are today. Today’s model of schooling is to bring the learner to the knowledge—tomorrow we will bring the knowledge to the learners. We must recognize that schools and classrooms are becoming nodes in networked learning communities. We must begin to think about how to organize learning in networked communities and not limit learning within the boundaries of classrooms and school buildings—which would be to limit our thinking to what has been possible in the past in a single school or node.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:29 am
Issues in Distance Learning
Distance education technologies are expanding at an extremely rapid rate. Too often, instructional designers and curriculum developers have become enamored of the latest technologies without dealing with the underlying issues of learner characteristics and needs, the influence of media upon the instructional process, equity of access to interactive delivery systems, and the new roles of teacher, site facilitator, and student in the distance learning process.
This review of literature and current information related to distance learning is an expansion and update of Schlosser and Anderson’s (1994) literature review for the Iowa model of distance education. Additional reports were obtained through the Pacific Mountain Network, the ERIC database, electronic communications via Internet with administrators of open universities and open learning agencies throughout the world, collections of manuscripts and documents in the Department of Instructional Technology and Special Education at the University of Colorado at Denver, and personal communications with distance education developers at professional conferences as well as school districts in the Greater Denver area. It is intended as a companion piece to Sherry and Morse’s (1995) Needs Assessment for Distance Education, as well as background information for other projects in telecommunications and distance learning.
The issues addressed in this report reflect some of the primary research issues covered by Schlosser and Anderson (1994), those stressed in the Far View I-IV (1994) videotape series, descriptions and evaluations of current distance education delivery systems by key administrators of open universities and open learning agencies, and issues deemed important by participants in the Needs Assessment for Distance Learning. These include redefining the roles of key participants, technology selection and adoption, design issues, strategies to increase interactivity and active learning, learner characteristics, learner support, operational issues, policy and management issues, equity and accessibility, and cost/benefit tradeoffs.
We will start with some definitions, history, theories, and systems of distance education. Next, we will deal with methods and strategies for designing and delivering instruction at a distance. We will then describe the characteristics of distance learners, their modes of learning, factors which influence success, and learner support systems. We will deal with operational issues, including technology adoption and defining the roles of key personnel. Finally, we will address management and policy decisions.
——————————————————————————–
February 26th, 2007 at 7:20 am
E-learning is evolving quickly. In its earliest stages, thousands of static pages of content were posted on the Web. It then became a quick and easy way to deliver instructions or learning modules to many people around the clock. The vision for e-learning going forward builds on this concept by continually imparting new bits of knowledge to thousands of people globally, in a variety of media, from many different subject matter experts
February 26th, 2007 at 8:15 am
To improve visual communication, is the course sensitive to the use of navigational icons or images? This is an example of the interface design and ethical consideration issue for the e-learning environment. In Bangladesh, we use the thumbs-up sign to challenge people, but to other cultures, that means you did well. A pointing hand icon to indicate direction would violate a cultural taboo in certain African cultures because it represents a dismembered body part .
March 4th, 2007 at 4:11 am
Critical Issue:
Technology: A Catalyst for Teaching and Learning in the Classroom
This Critical Issue was researched and written by Gilbert Valdez, Ph.D., director of North Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium and codirector of North Central Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Consortium (NCEMSC). Editorial guidance was provided by Barbara Youngren, director, NCEMSC.
The Critical Issue team would like to acknowledge the following experts for reviewing this article: Marla Davenport, director of Learning and Technology, TIES; Kathleen Fulton, director for Reinventing Schools for the 21st Century at the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future; and Robert Nelson, Learning, Leading and Technology.
Download an Adobe® Reader® (PDF) version of the this Critical Issue (276KB)
March 5th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Trends
E-Learning for Rural Teachers
January 13, 2003
The Delhi-based Learningmate recently announced its plans to work with partners to introduce e-learning to teachers in rural and underserved schools in India, parts of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East. World Links will use the Blackboard Learning System MLT (the multi-language edition of the company’s course management system) to train teachers in the use of technology and the Internet.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:17 am
Electronic learning or E-learning (recently known as eLearning) is an all-encompassing term generally used to refer to computer-enhanced learning, although it is often extended to include the use of mobile technologies such as PDAs and MP3 players. It may include the use of web-based teaching materials and hypermedia in general, multimedia CD-ROMs or web sites, discussion boards, collaborative software, e-mail, blogs, wikis, text chat, computer aided assessment, educational animation, simulations, games, learning management software, electronic voting systems and more, with possibly a combination of different methods being used.