Technology in the Classroom: A Summary of Research and Interviews
This video outlines current thinking by educational professionals about student engagement in technology. Check out our 'Tools' page for specific information on educational software and other resources.
Please look below to read the text of the video.
It is 9:30 am sharp in a seventh-grade classroom on the outskirts of Denver, and students are milling about the chairs and tables, finding their seats. Almost half of the students have the thin rubber cords from headphones dangling from their ears. As the teacher begins her lesson, she points to a handful of students still wearing their earbuds, telling the class to put all devices away during the lesson. The students comply, but minutes later, the thin rubber cords are again visible as they emerge from clandestinely from collars throughout the room.
Most teachers will find this scene familiar, and one of the major conflicts in contemporary education continues to play out in situations like this one everyday. The conflict I am talking about involves new technologies and the ways we should integrate them into our classroom routines. The questions about technology obviously involve more issues than just cell phones and music. The myriad apps and classroom devices available in many schools each present their own challenges and opportunities.
According to Megan Cronin, literacy coach and teacher at the Jefferson County Open School, “The worst thing [about technology] is that kids may take advantage because they know more about the computer programs than the person running the class … They’re already bored because you think you’re being innovative, and you’re actually old school” (M. Cronin, Personal Communication, Feb. 17, 2015).
In the previous paragraph, Cronin presents a fear shared by many teachers in our rapidly changing, technologically centered society: How can we keep track of innovations in technology and promote the right new technologies to help students succeed? There is increasing pressure from almost every angle to prepare students for a quickly changing cultural landscape, but with that pressure has produced as many new complications as solutions.
“I have a teacher friend whose entire school went to iPads, and then the school took them all away, because they were all abusing their privileges,” Cronin says. Regarding technology she adds, “I don’t think it’s an easy fix” (M. Cronin, 2015).
My recent conversations about school-wide technology initiatives have often included the recent, controversial decision by public schools in Los Angeles to give iPads to over 600,000 students in the district (Blume, 2015). There were many serious problems in the implementation of the project, and consequently, the schools demanded many of the iPads back. The superintendent was even let go because of the progam.
Howard Blume, of the Los Angeles Times, writes of a report that found the district was “too heavily focused on the iPad instead of being open to less-expensive alternatives. In addition, it concluded that teachers weren't provided enough training and that senior managers were unable or unwilling to communicate concerns and address issues before they became serious problems” (Blume, 2015. n.p.).
It bears consideration that the many of the problems with the iPad program were due to bad communication and planning. It appears that bad judgments by those in the school’s district had as much to do with the program’s failure as any problem with the functioning of the iPads themselves.
“I was just floored by the whole program, Cronin says. You have to have some communication between the policymakers and the individuals” (M. Cronin, 2015).
According to both Apple and Greatschools.org, “there are seven million iPads in U.S. schools and ten million iPads in schools around the world” (Tynan-Wood, n.d., n.p.). Great schools.org also cites studies showing that iPads provide “a range of learning benefits, including increases in student motivation, collaboration between students and teachers, and collaboration among students themselves” (Tynan-Wood, n.d., n.p.). But, as the difficulties of the Los Angeles iPad program shows, the new devices do not solve every problem in classrooms. Some districts have seen technology as a panacea, or even a mere buzzword, instead of an opportunity for students to deepen their relationships with the content they encounter.
In a paper on technology and student interest, authors Marilyn P. Arnone, Ruth V. Small, Sarah A. Chauncey, and H. Patricia McKenna write that educators should be focused on “’participatory cultures’ as opposed to ‘interactive technologies.’ Focusing on the extent to which technology can facilitate a culture of learning means that the goals of the culture are emphasized as opposed to the interesting features of a given technology (2011).
Larry Bush, a school psychologist noted for his work concerning the shootings at Columbine High School, is among those ambivalent about the ways that new technologies have been implemented in schools. “I think there was a miscalculation made in our collective educational psyche,” Bush says. “We thought that providing a piece of technology to a kid would give him these tools to streamline his educational experience and allow him to digest more and do more things in a more efficient way. But we did not increase efficiency in a scalable way. Every kid you hand technology to is a different kid (L. Bush, Personal Communication, Feb. 19, 2015).
After hearing several statements similar to Bush’s, and we now believe that, when it comes to the effectiveness of technology in schools, it is the relationships between the people involved that determine the results of any scholastic technological undertaking. Technology in the classroom is not easily scalable, but the large amount of money necessary to implement district-wide technological norms means that those districts often favor a once-size-fits-all approach.
On this subject, Cronin remarks that, as far as she’s concerned, “you need to make a rule for each kid” about their technology use (2015). That level of individual planning might seem unattainable or just misguided to school district officials who are trying to provide 600,000 students with a new system of education, but, if the remarks by Cronin and Bush are any indication, many teachers want individual kids to receive individual consideration when it comes to technology.
Bush continues, “For the students that we know, we might be better served spending a couple of hours deciding exactly what we want them to do with that technology first before handing it to them. We have to teach them to use the tool and set some limits … There’s a lot of real potential if the students will buy into it. Like, I may think this is a great application, but if you’re not going to use it, it’s useless” (L. Bush, 2015).
Most research seems to agree that the relevance of the technology to each individual student’s experience, along with the culture of the learning environment, has a great deal to do with each ‘s student’s success in learning through technology.
Arnone, Small, Chauncey, and McKenna also write that “the curiosity component leads to interest and engagement, but only if … the curiosity is satisfied. If curiosity is unresolved due to lack of perceived competence, … the outcome might be withdrawal, anxiety, or frustration” (2011, 186).
In other words, students become interested in using technology as an educational tool when it can be used to satisfy their individual curiosities. If they view the technology as ineffective for satisfying their curiosity, they will withdraw, and the teacher might not get another chance to get them interested in new educational tools.
The greatest problem with implementing new technologies in the classroom might be that a savvy population of students with improperly distributed digital learning tools can always create havoc if left unguided in the use of those tools. The teacher must have a detailed plan for implementing technology in the classroom; step-by-step instructions can be very effective. In addition, if kids are not given technology in a situation that satisfies their curiosity, they will find other ways to do so. However, if educators can provide ways for each student to relate to new technologies on his or her own terms, a culture of learning can be created in which everyone benefits. Technology can then be used to bring students and teachers together. If teachers can find interesting things for students to play on their headphones, we can all stop worrying so much about them.
--Lincoln Greenhaw
For further information, check out these
Resources:
Arnone, Marilyn P., Ruth V. Small, Sarah A. Chauncey, and H. Patricia Mckenna.
"Curiosity, Interest and Engagement in Technology-pervasive Learning Environments: A New Research Agenda." Educational Technology Research and Development 59.2 (2011): 181-98. Web.
Blume, Howard. "L.A. Unified's IPad Program Plagued by Problems Early, Review Says."
Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles] 12 Jan. 2015, Web ed., Local/Education sec.: Web.
Tynan-Wood, Christina (n.d.). “iPads in the Classroom: The Promise and the Problems.”
GreatSchools. n.d. Web. Retrieved from http://www.greatschools.org/technology/7910-ipad-technology-in-the-classroom.gs
All photos used by permission of Creative Commons.
Music Copyrighted by Aquatic Lights, LLC. Lincoln Greenhaw, Matthew Fioravanti officers
This video outlines current thinking by educational professionals about student engagement in technology. Check out our 'Tools' page for specific information on educational software and other resources.
Please look below to read the text of the video.
It is 9:30 am sharp in a seventh-grade classroom on the outskirts of Denver, and students are milling about the chairs and tables, finding their seats. Almost half of the students have the thin rubber cords from headphones dangling from their ears. As the teacher begins her lesson, she points to a handful of students still wearing their earbuds, telling the class to put all devices away during the lesson. The students comply, but minutes later, the thin rubber cords are again visible as they emerge from clandestinely from collars throughout the room.
Most teachers will find this scene familiar, and one of the major conflicts in contemporary education continues to play out in situations like this one everyday. The conflict I am talking about involves new technologies and the ways we should integrate them into our classroom routines. The questions about technology obviously involve more issues than just cell phones and music. The myriad apps and classroom devices available in many schools each present their own challenges and opportunities.
According to Megan Cronin, literacy coach and teacher at the Jefferson County Open School, “The worst thing [about technology] is that kids may take advantage because they know more about the computer programs than the person running the class … They’re already bored because you think you’re being innovative, and you’re actually old school” (M. Cronin, Personal Communication, Feb. 17, 2015).
In the previous paragraph, Cronin presents a fear shared by many teachers in our rapidly changing, technologically centered society: How can we keep track of innovations in technology and promote the right new technologies to help students succeed? There is increasing pressure from almost every angle to prepare students for a quickly changing cultural landscape, but with that pressure has produced as many new complications as solutions.
“I have a teacher friend whose entire school went to iPads, and then the school took them all away, because they were all abusing their privileges,” Cronin says. Regarding technology she adds, “I don’t think it’s an easy fix” (M. Cronin, 2015).
My recent conversations about school-wide technology initiatives have often included the recent, controversial decision by public schools in Los Angeles to give iPads to over 600,000 students in the district (Blume, 2015). There were many serious problems in the implementation of the project, and consequently, the schools demanded many of the iPads back. The superintendent was even let go because of the progam.
Howard Blume, of the Los Angeles Times, writes of a report that found the district was “too heavily focused on the iPad instead of being open to less-expensive alternatives. In addition, it concluded that teachers weren't provided enough training and that senior managers were unable or unwilling to communicate concerns and address issues before they became serious problems” (Blume, 2015. n.p.).
It bears consideration that the many of the problems with the iPad program were due to bad communication and planning. It appears that bad judgments by those in the school’s district had as much to do with the program’s failure as any problem with the functioning of the iPads themselves.
“I was just floored by the whole program, Cronin says. You have to have some communication between the policymakers and the individuals” (M. Cronin, 2015).
According to both Apple and Greatschools.org, “there are seven million iPads in U.S. schools and ten million iPads in schools around the world” (Tynan-Wood, n.d., n.p.). Great schools.org also cites studies showing that iPads provide “a range of learning benefits, including increases in student motivation, collaboration between students and teachers, and collaboration among students themselves” (Tynan-Wood, n.d., n.p.). But, as the difficulties of the Los Angeles iPad program shows, the new devices do not solve every problem in classrooms. Some districts have seen technology as a panacea, or even a mere buzzword, instead of an opportunity for students to deepen their relationships with the content they encounter.
In a paper on technology and student interest, authors Marilyn P. Arnone, Ruth V. Small, Sarah A. Chauncey, and H. Patricia McKenna write that educators should be focused on “’participatory cultures’ as opposed to ‘interactive technologies.’ Focusing on the extent to which technology can facilitate a culture of learning means that the goals of the culture are emphasized as opposed to the interesting features of a given technology (2011).
Larry Bush, a school psychologist noted for his work concerning the shootings at Columbine High School, is among those ambivalent about the ways that new technologies have been implemented in schools. “I think there was a miscalculation made in our collective educational psyche,” Bush says. “We thought that providing a piece of technology to a kid would give him these tools to streamline his educational experience and allow him to digest more and do more things in a more efficient way. But we did not increase efficiency in a scalable way. Every kid you hand technology to is a different kid (L. Bush, Personal Communication, Feb. 19, 2015).
After hearing several statements similar to Bush’s, and we now believe that, when it comes to the effectiveness of technology in schools, it is the relationships between the people involved that determine the results of any scholastic technological undertaking. Technology in the classroom is not easily scalable, but the large amount of money necessary to implement district-wide technological norms means that those districts often favor a once-size-fits-all approach.
On this subject, Cronin remarks that, as far as she’s concerned, “you need to make a rule for each kid” about their technology use (2015). That level of individual planning might seem unattainable or just misguided to school district officials who are trying to provide 600,000 students with a new system of education, but, if the remarks by Cronin and Bush are any indication, many teachers want individual kids to receive individual consideration when it comes to technology.
Bush continues, “For the students that we know, we might be better served spending a couple of hours deciding exactly what we want them to do with that technology first before handing it to them. We have to teach them to use the tool and set some limits … There’s a lot of real potential if the students will buy into it. Like, I may think this is a great application, but if you’re not going to use it, it’s useless” (L. Bush, 2015).
Most research seems to agree that the relevance of the technology to each individual student’s experience, along with the culture of the learning environment, has a great deal to do with each ‘s student’s success in learning through technology.
Arnone, Small, Chauncey, and McKenna also write that “the curiosity component leads to interest and engagement, but only if … the curiosity is satisfied. If curiosity is unresolved due to lack of perceived competence, … the outcome might be withdrawal, anxiety, or frustration” (2011, 186).
In other words, students become interested in using technology as an educational tool when it can be used to satisfy their individual curiosities. If they view the technology as ineffective for satisfying their curiosity, they will withdraw, and the teacher might not get another chance to get them interested in new educational tools.
The greatest problem with implementing new technologies in the classroom might be that a savvy population of students with improperly distributed digital learning tools can always create havoc if left unguided in the use of those tools. The teacher must have a detailed plan for implementing technology in the classroom; step-by-step instructions can be very effective. In addition, if kids are not given technology in a situation that satisfies their curiosity, they will find other ways to do so. However, if educators can provide ways for each student to relate to new technologies on his or her own terms, a culture of learning can be created in which everyone benefits. Technology can then be used to bring students and teachers together. If teachers can find interesting things for students to play on their headphones, we can all stop worrying so much about them.
--Lincoln Greenhaw
For further information, check out these
Resources:
Arnone, Marilyn P., Ruth V. Small, Sarah A. Chauncey, and H. Patricia Mckenna.
"Curiosity, Interest and Engagement in Technology-pervasive Learning Environments: A New Research Agenda." Educational Technology Research and Development 59.2 (2011): 181-98. Web.
Blume, Howard. "L.A. Unified's IPad Program Plagued by Problems Early, Review Says."
Los Angeles Times [Los Angeles] 12 Jan. 2015, Web ed., Local/Education sec.: Web.
Tynan-Wood, Christina (n.d.). “iPads in the Classroom: The Promise and the Problems.”
GreatSchools. n.d. Web. Retrieved from http://www.greatschools.org/technology/7910-ipad-technology-in-the-classroom.gs
All photos used by permission of Creative Commons.
Music Copyrighted by Aquatic Lights, LLC. Lincoln Greenhaw, Matthew Fioravanti officers