A ravishing debate in the area
integrating technology and society is the presence of technology in our schools
and classroom. This debate has been ongoing over the past decades as scholars
and administrators argue the benefits and draw backs of placing technology
inside the classroom. There are already schools that have integrated one to one
laptop programs, essentially providing one laptop for every student in
enrollment (Lei, 2010), and in the past ten years the U.S. alone has invested
more than $66 billion in school technology (Quality Education Data, 2004).
Likewise, there are other programs across the world that has the same aim.
China is one of the leading proponents of technology in the classroom spending
over 40 billion annually on the cause (Okokok Report, 2004). These are old
numbers and with technology advancing faster than ever, we can assume that
these figure could be on the rise.
Now
some world economist would postulate that if we don’t want our children to be
behind in yet another area of public education, we should invest the money into
education with haste. However, as always we shall look at what the research has
to say on whether this is helping or a hindering in the public education
system. However, there are many sides of
this issue that need to be considered including public policy, costs, teachers
opinions, as well as what research may say is best for the students.
One of the most
popular and cost effective ways to introduce technology to the public school
system is cellphones. Cell phones have for as long as I can remember been
banned from every public school I have ever attended, in fact, they are banned
in 69% of classrooms nationwide (Commonsense, 2010). Public schools have many
fears about openly allowing the use of cell phones in the classroom by
students. These seem obvious to anyone
who has ever worked or attended a school – kids can use the phones to cheat (CommonSense, 2010; Strom & Strom, 2007),
they could use textese instead of Standard English (for a refutation of
this fear see my previous blog post)( Brouin
& Davis, 2009; Lee, 2002; Lenhart, Arafef, Smith, &, Macgill, 2008),
and there is also the fear of cyber bullying (Beran & Li, 2005; Feinberg & Robey, 2008; Long, 2008; Obringer
& Coffey, 2007) and sexting in schools (Boucek, 2009; Car- roll, 2004; Soronen, Vitale, & Haase, 2010).
These fears have been allowed to disregard that todays cell phones are
inexpensive mobile computing devices with access to a large range of
applications that could be beneficial in the classroom. The bonus to this is
that most teens already own a cell phone and are proficient in their use of the
technology. Youthbeat (2009) reported that 84% of teens between the ages of
15-18 years old have a cell phone, and 85% of those use their cell phones for
texting. Additionally, 70% of these teens are already using texting for school
work (Lenhart, Ling, Campell, & Purcell, 2010). Let me make it clear – I am
not saying these fears are without merit, but I am saying that they are based
mostly on anecdotal evidence, and ignore that fact that while cell phones may
make it easier for students to engage in these behaviors, they are far from the
cause.
In this post, I
will attempt to address all of these concerns as well as show potential
academic uses for cell phones in the classroom. In addition, I will highlight
some research that not only shows that using technology is not hurting kids,
but in fact may be providing them with benefits seen beyond the classroom.
First, one of schools main
concerns about allowing phones in the classroom is that students would find it
difficult to code switch between textese and Standard English. My previous post
deals entirely with refuting this misinformation and anecdotal evidence. To
summarize, Drouin (2011) found that textese is not hurting people’s knowledge
of Standard English, and it could actually be improving literacy rates.
Basically, as speech and language therapist Veenal Raval notes:
“The fear that has been put across in the media is that children don’t
understand the need to code switch-that is, switch between Standard English
grammar for an exam or essay and what is acceptable when you are communicating
on a social level. In fact, they are capable of that switch, just as bi- or tri-lingual
children might speak English at school and mother or father tongue at home
(Ward, 2004).”
Secondly, schools are worried about students using their phone to cheat.
In fact, a recent study by Common Sense Media (2010) found that one0third of
high school students reported using their cell phones to cheat. While this is
an alarming statistic, we must remember that the practice of cheating is not a
result of the cell phone. In 1980, before mobile phones, 75% of students
reported cheating in school (Baird, 1980). Twenty-five years later, 74% of
students reported cheating in school (Pickett & Thomas, 2006). Teenagers
are teenagers, and it seems that the same percentage cheats no matter the
technology. Therefore, removing the opportunity to use cell phones will hardly
fix this issue. A better resolution would be for students to check in their
phones at the beginning of a testing period and retrieve them when they leave
the room (Thomas & McGee, 2012).
Thirdly, a concern for
schools is cyberbullying. The act of bullying has always been in schools, and
anywhere that young people gather. Cyberbullying is just a new way that kids
have found to hurt fellow students. The Pew Internet and American Life Project
found that 26% of teens have been harassed through their mobile phone either by
calls or text messages (Lenhart et al., 2010). However, banning cell phones is
not going to stop bullying nor has it in the past. Rather, teachers, students,
and parents need to be educated about bullying and digital behavior, how to
build empathy and understanding, teach online safety skills, and equip young
people with strategies to reject digital bullies (Holladay, 2010). This fear
also connects with the next concern: sexting.
As David Crystal (2008) says in Txting: The Gr8 Db8, much of the fear
associated with cell phones and texting is a creation of the media. This is no
more relevant than with sexting. As many as one in five teens have reported
sending a nude or semi-nude photo of themselves to someone in a text message
and 22% report having received such an image from someone else (National
Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy). Again, teenagers have been
talking and writing about sex since the dawn of humanity. There is nothing new
in technology that supports this behavior. Rather, it is just the result of
lack of guidance and mentoring on what is and is not appropriate behavior
(Thomas & McGee, 2012).
Teaching technology in schools is analogous
to teaching driver’s education in schools. Just as the driver’s education
instructor teaches students how to properly drive a vehicle, educators should
be teaching students the appropriate use of technologies if for no other reason
than they are, “learning to do something very important that carries some inherent
and significant personal and social dangers” (Hargadon, 2008). An alarming
number of students are injured or killed in traffic accidents each year, but no
one blames the car for these tragedies. It is accepted that driver error, and
not the car itself, is at fault. The same is true of cell phones used for
inappropriate activity (Thomas & McGee, 2012).
The fear of texting in schools goes
beyond student to student interacts. Some fear that texting may lead to
inappropriate relationships between teachers and students. Some states such as Louisiana
have banned electronic communications between students and teachers, including
texting (LaMonte, 2009; Watters, 2011). Wolfe
(2007) admits that technologies such as texting have the potential to be
invasive, but so does email or the landline phone. He states that teachers who
follow the proper guidelines can use any technology in a professional
manner.
Instructional
Benefits
Text messaging can support numerous
types of participant interactions such as student to student, student to
teacher, student to content, and teacher/school to parent communication (Thomas
& McGee, 2012). Students are already
using their cell phones to text one another about school- work. In fact, 76% of
girls and 64% of boys text about school work (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, &
Purcell, 2010). This shows us that students are already using text messages as
an informal way to collaborate on homework assignments; however, teachers can
use them for more formal assignments.
For example, Nick Schultz, a high school Latin teacher sent students
text messages in Latin and they were expected to respond in Latin. There is a
growing body of research that supports that this kind of communication is
helpful when teaching languages (Thomas & Orthober, 2011).
Texting can also be seen as a way to
assess students in the classroom such as with pop quizzes, spelling and math
tests, and to poll student responses (Prensky, 2005). Whattananarong (2006)
found that cell phones can be an effective form of test taking. Companies like
Kaplan and the Princeton Review have already adopted this research, and offer
text based test preparation for the SATs and other standardized tests.
Additionally, texting can be used for taking attendance and for polling student
responses on sites such as Poll Everywhere (polleverywhere.com), which allows
cell phones to be used as a response system. These answers are anonymous and
provide fast responses on classroom material, and can facilitate discussion
among class members (Roschelle, 2004; Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, &
Sharples, 2004).
Text
messaging can also be used by teachers and school administrators to communicate
with parents. Research has demonstrated that providing students and parents
with regular communication about assignments leads to a high completion rate
(Si-Chu & Williams, 1996), and open communication between schools and
parents is directly related to student achievement (Henderson & Mapp,
2002).
Finally, texting allows for greater
student reflection. They can use texting to add to class discussions after
class has already end for the day (Markett et al., 2003), and it could also
allow shier students to participate more in class discussions (Davis, 2003).
Cell phones can also use cell phones
to create digital images and podcasts for projects, as well as used for Internet
access and educational applications (such as a graphing calculator app for math
class) (Thomas & McGee, 2012).
One Study
Adapting technology for the
classroom can have several benefits for students. Lei (2010) assessed student
technology use in a school that had highly integrated technology to a one to
one laptop to student ratio. This study divided technology use into five
different categories: (1) Subject-specific uses; (2) social-communication; (3)
construction-technology uses, such as using technology to create websites or
editing pictures; (4) exploration/entertainment technology uses, such as
playing games or using new technology; and (5) general technology which
included technology that can be applied to any content area and for any purpose
such as taking notes or surfing the web. This study also measured technology
use as it was related to student academic achievement, technology proficiency,
learning habits, and developmental outcomes.
The survey was distributed to 237
seventh and eighth graders twice, once at the beginning of a school year and
once at the end. Achievement data was collected from GPAs in school records. It
assessed demographic information including SES and gender, all the technology
areas listed above, time spent on technology, GPA, and technological proficiency
(Lei, 2010).
The study found that there was no
strong association between quantity
of technology use and student GPA (Lei, 2010). This supports previous research
that students who use computers more frequently at school did not perform
better than those who used technology less frequently (OECD, 2005). However, we
must remember that this pertains only to overall computer use, and does not in
any way assess how students are interacting with the technology, or how/if they
are using it as a tool for schoolwork.
Similarly, when not taking into account student interactions with
technology and only looking at quantity of technology use, there was no
significant relationship between technology proficiency and developmental
outcomes (Lei, 2010).
However, we see remarkably different
results when assessing types of technology use. For instance, Lei (2010) found
that using technology for social-communication purposes had some positive effect
on student GPA. This was most likely due to the students using these
communication technologies to communicate with teachers regarding assignments
and questions on lectures (Lei, 2010). These technologies also provided
students with more avenues to ask questions. This could be particularly helpful
for students who are too shy to ask questions in class. In fact, Lei (2010) had
several teachers report that shy students were the one most likely to take
adavantage of these communication pathways most frequently.
Lei (2010) also found that using
technology for entertainment and exploration was negatively associated with
student achievement. This is likely the result of students using their study
time for gaming and other entertainment technologies. The more time students
spent engaged in these technologies, the less time they had for learning. Further,
subject-specific technologies had a negative influence on student technology
proficiency. This is likely caused by technologies developed for specific subjects
do not have a wide range of tasks, and so they give students little cause to
use exploratory techniques. Also, the limited manner in which they provide
access to technology does not translate into using more common software such as
Microsoft Office or Adobe Suite. However, general technology use was found to
be positively associated with student technology proficiency. Also, in addition
to being slightly positively associated with student academic achievement,
social-communication technology use had a significantly positive impact on
student developmental outcomes. It is arguable that the more students use
technologies for social-communication, the more they feel socially connected,
which is very important in teenage development (Wighting, 2006).
As one would expect from the earlier
finding discussed, entertainment-exploration technology use significantly
influenced student’s learning habits. Early we reported that a high quantity of
use in entertainment-exploration technology was negatively associated with
student achievement outcomes. However, it seems that some exposure can be
helpful in helping students follow project directions and organize and
prioritize schoolwork. This advantage can be far outweighed if one spends too
much time on entertainment and gaming on computers.
Implications
As you can see, there are many
benefits to students using technology in the classroom as supported by
research. Like with every topic I cover, I encourage you to go out there and
look at the research yourself. I choose to review the one study that I did by
Lei (2010) because I felt it was the most encompassing study that hit on what I
wanted to cover. However, as with any research, it is not perfect. There are
limitations to assessing technology use in the classroom, as well as barriers
to implementing them.
As one teacher pointed out in Lei’s
(2010) study, student learning with technology is difficult to measure because
much of learning is hidden. Students now have the opportunities and resources
to explore far beyond the borders of what is presented in the classroom. This
points to one of the main arguments with this research, the validity of
measuring student academic achievement by GPA. Tests with paper and pencil were
used to measure learning in traditional setting such as with a lecture and
notes. If we are pushing our classrooms beyond this, then maybe we need to push
our assessments there also. Also, this should not be the only variable by which
we measure technological integration with. We should further take into account
other student outcomes in future research such as student behavior, attitude,
self-esteem, digital literacy, and career aspirations (Lei, 2010).
Further, we need to keep in mind
realistic expectations for technological integration in schools. Our public
school systems are full of problems, and technology is not the answer to all of
them. No student outcomes will be fully mediated by technology. Other
predictors of outcomes are environmental factors, the users, and as Lei (2010)
shows the type of technology plays an important role. It would be unrealistic
then, to expect dramatic changes with the integration of one or two specific
technologies. I do, however, think that this research gives us an idea of where
our schools and education systems may be headed to in the future.
Sources
Baird, J. S. (1980). Current trends in college cheating. Psy- chology
in the Schools, 17, 515–522
Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2005). Cyber-harassment: A study of a new
method for an old behavior. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 32, 265-277.
Boucek, S. G. (2009). Dealing with the nightmare of “sex- ting”. Education
Digest, 75(3), 10-12.
Brouin &
Davis, 2009;
Carroll, C. A. (2004). Camera phones raise whole new set of privacy
issues. Education Week, 23(23), 8.
CommonSense Media (2010). Hi-Tech Cheating: Mobile Phones and Cheating
in Schools: A National Poll. Retrieved from http://www.commonsensemedia.org/
hi-tech-cheating
Crystal, D. (2008). Textng: the gr8 db8. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Feinberg, T., & Robey, N. (2008). Cyber bullying. Princi- pal
Leadership, 9(1), 10-14.
Hargadon, 2008 Hargadon, S. (2008). Moving toward Web 2.0 in K-12
Education. Encyclopedia Britannica Blog. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/10/movingtoward-web-20-in-k-12-education/
Henderson & Mapp, 2002 Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A
new wave
of evidence. The impact of school, family, andcom- munity connections
on student achievement. Annual synthesis. Austin, TX: National Center for
Family & Community Connections with Schools. Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/connections.
LaMonte, 2009; LaMonte, F. (2009). Louisiana joins “technophobia” craze
with restraints on teacher-student communications. Student Press Law Center.
Retrieved from http://www. splc.org/wordpress/?p=308
Lee, J. (2002). I Think, Therefore IM. New York Times. Retrieved
from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06E5D71230F93AA2575AC0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010)Teens and
Mobile Phones. Pew
Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Wash-ington,
DC. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Teens-and-Mobile-Phones.aspx
Long, C. (2008). Silencing Cyberbullies. NEA Today, 26, 28-29.
Markett, C., Sanchez, I. A., Weber, S., & Tangney, B. (2006). Using
short message service to encourage in- teractivity in the classroom. Computers
and Education, 46, 280-293.
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M.(2004).
Literature review in mobile
technologies and learning, FutureLab Report II. Retrievedfrom
http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/docu-ments/lit_reviews/Mobile_Review.pdf
Obringer, S. J., & Coffey, K. (2007). Cell phones in American high
schools: A national survey. The Journal ofTechnology Studies, 31, 41-47.
Prensky, M. (2005). What can you learn from a mobile phone? Almost
anything! Innovate, 1(5). [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.
php?view=article&id=83
Roschelle, J. (2004). Unlocking the learning value of wire- less mobile
devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 260-272.
Strom, P. S., & Strom, R. D. (2007). Curbing cheating, raising
integrity. The Education Digest, 72(8), 42-50.
Sui-Chu, E., & Willms, J. D. (1996). Effects of parental involvement
on eighth-grade achievement. Sociology of Education, 69(2), 126-141.
Ward, L. (2004). Texting is no bar to literacy. The Guardian. December
23, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2004/dec/23/schools.mobilephones
Ward, L. (2004). Texting is no bar to literacy. The Guardian. December
23, 2004. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2004/dec/23/schools.mobilephones
Whattananarong, K. (2006). Experiment in the use of mobile phones. Bangkok,
Thailand: King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://
etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12606048/index.pdf
YouthBeat: A Syndicated Report. (2009). C & R Research.Retrieved
from http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/2be698e9#/2be698e9/1
Okokok Report (2004). “2005 Market Report of China’s Educational
Technology Development and IT Application Trends’. Retrieved from http://www.okokok.com.cn/Shop/Class41/200411/167.html
Lenhart, A., Arafeh, S., Smith, A., & Macgill, A. R. (2008).
Writing, Technology and Teens. Retrieved from http:// www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Writing_Report_FINAL3.pdf.
Davis, S. (2003). Observations in classrooms using a net- work of
handheld devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 298-307.
Soronen, L. E., Vitale, N., & Haase, K. A. (2010). Sexting at School:
Lessons learned the hard way. Inquiry and Analysis: National School Boards
Association Council of School Attorneys. Retrieved from
http://www.nsba.org/SecondaryMenu/COSA/Resources/InquiryAnalysis/
IA-Feb-10.aspx
Thomas, K., & Orthober, C. (2011). Using Text-Messag- ing in the
Secondary Classroom. American Secondary Education, 39(2), 55-76.
Drouin,
M.A. (2011). College students’ text messaging, use of textese, and literacy
skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
27, 67-75. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00399.x
Thomas, K. M., & McGee, C. D. (2012).
The only thing we have to fear is… 120 characters. TechTrends 56, 19-33.
