Technology in the Classroom

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.