Understanding the importance of using technological tools in teaching political science, the organizers of the APSA Teaching and Learning Conference dedicated two tracks to teaching with technology. Track I was moderated by Robert H. Trudeau of Providence College.

The first session focused on utilizing technology in the classroom. Antonio Rappa of the National University of Singapore demonstrated the usefulness of Integrated Virtual Learning Environment (IVLE), a web-based technology, for political theory courses. Three main benefits emerged from his research: professors can track students' performance level and depth of participation more easily, students can participate at their own pace, and professor-student communication can transcend the traditional school hours. Bob Van Dyk of Pacific University, Oregon, introduced ways to instruct students about Geographic Information Systems (GIS), a graphic computer program that layers data to help students understand physical relationships. For example, students used GIS to consider public policy issues such as resource allocation and preservation by juxtaposing maps of the breeding grounds of the spotted owl with logging maps. Mark Tompkins of the University of South Carolina explored the usefulness of two different computer-based programs that help students understand the complexity of federal budgetary constraints and common property issues involved in public policy decision making. Ruth Ediger of Seattle Pacific University presented data on student perception that a computer-based geoquiz program which tested student knowledge of the location of the world's countries and capitals is superior to traditional memorization methods. The students also reported that they were more likely to study for geoquizzes because it was enjoyable.

The second session assessed technological tools used among political science scholars and teachers. Roger C. Lowery of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington introduced Student-response Systems (SRS), a student-polling technology much like a TV remote control, designed to record and maximize student participation particularly in large classes. With SRS professors can increase students' active participation, awareness of their colleagues' views, satisfaction, and attendance. Gregory D. Miller of William and Mary College addressed the valuable role of movies inside the classroom. Like Lowery, Miller cautioned against using technology for technology's sake. John H. Riley, Jr. of Kutztown University of Pennsylvania compared the effectiveness of PowerPoint for three academic levels of students: high-, middle-, and low-achieving. He found that although high- and low-achieving students' grades were virtually unaffected, the grades of the middle-level group were significantly higher. Davida J. Alperin of University of Wisconsin, River Falls, assessed the difference between teaching with and without the use of computers, concluding that student performance and final grades are unaffected by computer usage.

The final session highlighted effective strategies for e-learning and online instruction. Francis Moran, III of New Jersey City University compared final grade results for the 2004–2005 calendar years in specific classes with sections offered both online and in the traditional classroom each with identical substance. His research showed that the online student grades were higher, suggesting that the online environment provides a forum for debates in which ideas are more fully developed; alternative views are more common in light of the virtual anonymity; writing skills improve more rapidly; and “quiet” students participate. Moran resolved the researcher's ethical dilemma of exposing one group of students to potentially beneficial technology while depriving the control group by allowing students to select whether to enroll in an online or in-class section. Chunmei Yoe of Southeastern Oklahoma State University (SOSU) considered the practical and pedagogical implications of teaching American Government both in class and online; she attempted to maintain structural similarities. Yoe was unable to reach many definitive conclusions regarding whether online courses are more accessible (affordable/convenient) and/or efficient since the data available to her included only SOSU students, and it was not possible to determine whether online courses were more accessible and/or efficient to non-SOSU students. Ulrich Gysel of the International Relations and Security Network (ISN) at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETHZ) presented a paper co-authored by Sean Costigan of ISN/ETHZ. They introduced ways to utilize open source and cutting edge technology in serving cooperative security. ISN/ETHZ produces free, open material (www.isn.ethz.ch/edu) for teaching IR. To get a handle on openly available content, web-wide, they suggested establishing an e-learning in IR certification body and the possibility of a clearinghouse for open source e-learning content. The paper was presented with a mind mapping tool (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindmap) as an alternative to PowerPoint, which allows for presentations of ideas in a linear and non-linear manner.