If the past six weeks (as of the date I started to write this) have taught us anything, it is that children can learn through the use of technology, specifically portable digital devices. While many parents are complaining about “homeschooling” their children, many more are posting images on social media showing proud moments of “independent learning” while in front of a laptop. More and more children are using laptops and tablets to have virtual meetings with their teachers and classmates. I’ll just bet that when the software companies that created SkypeⓇ or ZoomⓇ (and the lesser-known GoToMeetingⓇ) published their marketing campaigns, they didn’t think their software would be used for elementary classrooms. 

Before teachers were forced to integrate technology into the curriculum, how many were actually using one-to-one technology on a regular basis? What factors influence teachers in the use of integrated technology instruction? Is technology an appropriate way to enhance the teaching of literacy? How can digital devices take the place of pencil and paper products that provide proof of learning outcomes?

Protest traditional teaching methods the way Pink Floyd did in 1978.

While research has been conducted on the achievement levels of young students who learn in an integrated classroom, very little of that research has been conducted in the United States. Australia, Sweden, Japan, and Spain have published peer-reviewed studies (both qualitative and quantitative) on the effectiveness of one-to-one instruction in student achievement in the primary grades. However, our education system is widely different from those countries’. Studies that I have found show that the United States has only conducted studies on the effectiveness of technology in the classroom in middle and high school grades. Therefore, I decided to change my focus to why one-to-one technology is not being used in the classroom and to provide ideas to encourage teachers to enhance literacy instruction through a few different software applications.

Technology has been a growing part of education since its introduction into the educational setting. My first formal experience with a computer was “Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing” and learning LOTUS during my senior year in high school in the early ‘90s. By that time, we’d had a computer in our home for about four years, so I wouldn’t be considered a true “digital native”. (I’ll discuss this in a later paragraph.)  I graduated in a class of over 500 and there was only one classroom with 15 computers. The class itself was not part of graduation requirements; it was an elective. It was so popular that the teacher didn’t get a prep period, and there were two extra classes in the day: “zero” period, which was an hour before school started, and the “ninth” period, which was for an hour after the class day was over. Every single class was filled to capacity.

It has been a number of decades since I sat in that computer classroom in the basement of my old high school. So much has changed as far as computer use and access in the classroom. According to Barone and Wright, approximately 95% of all K-12 classrooms in the United States had access to the Internet in 2005 (292). When I taught fourth grade from 2006-2009, I had four desktop computers for an average of 23 students. We had one computer lab for our building of 15 classrooms installed in the middle of my second year of teaching. Computer access in public schools is determined by how much technology funding exists in individual school district budgets. So when Barone and Wright claim that “by 2005, 55% of U.S. schools had instructional laptops, although not necessarily one-to-one laptop classrooms” and that “many schools used carts with laptops with wireless access to support instruction as a substitution or transition to one-to-one laptop classrooms” (293), my guess would be that those schools have placed a priority on increasing or improving technology and have the funds to do so. 

(O’Byrne)

It makes you wonder where the funds come from – discounting the obvious: taxes. The U.S. Department of Education’s website states that its mission is to “promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.” While this is a lofty goal, let me reiterate the “global competitiveness” portion of that statement, which refers to (corporate) business and capitalism. Do business strategies belong in the classroom? Should businesses have input on educational curriculum and processes? “Equal access” can only be accomplished through the schools providing technology to each student (hence, one-to-one technology), and not relying on the families to afford the technology themselves. This is where businesses should become community partners and donate funds for the purchase of updated devices.

By 2014, approximately 9% of the Gross National Product was spent on education (Frey, 54). Many successful companies have changed direction and “are developing products and services tailored to the needs of schools” (Frey, 54). So, are they exploiting the need for our children to have access to technology and teachers’ need for academic software to enhance instruction?

(Cuban)

Companies that provide technological devices or software applications will not solve the issue of non-use of technology. While “many educators and policymakers alike have valued the potential of digital technology to revolutionize the education system” (Blackwell, Lauricella, & Wartella, 82), many teachers simply don’t feel comfortable using technology in the classroom. Taking into consideration the federal government’s focus on and investment in technology, Blackwell et al., conducted a study that explored various factors that may influence a teacher’s decision to use technology in the classroom.  They discovered first-order and second-order barriers to teachers using technology in the classroom. The first-order barriers are identified as “support, technology policy, student SES (socioeconomic status), and teaching experience” while second-order barriers were identified as “confidence and attitudes” and “influenced directly by the first-order barriers… suggesting a dynamic relationship between first- and second-order barriers to technology integration” (Blackwell, et al.,87-88).

 Ultimately, the quantitative and qualitative study conducted by Blackwell et al. found that teachers feel it is important “for school leaders and teacher educators to help teachers through targeted support and strong technology visions (such as a policy on technology use in the classroom) to influence teacher confidence, attitudes, and ultimately use” (89). As a former elementary teacher who was issued a Macbook on the first day of school of my first year of teaching in 2006, I can commiserate with the teachers in Blackwell’s study. I had never used an Apple product before and was not given any guidance on how to navigate the laptop. I had to rely on fellow teachers to show me how to use it and the external devices that went with it. While we had IT support for login, Powerschool, or email issues, there was no support as far as software applications they wanted us to use in the classroom. I wholeheartedly agree with Blackwell, et al. when they conclude “it is critical that if schools are investing so much money on technology that they invest sufficient time to provide support for teachers in understanding how to use technology effectively in their classrooms” (89).

(Liberman)

Many teachers currently in the profession are part of the older generation and of the “traditional mindset” and view one-to-one integrated instruction unfavorably. In a study similar to Blackwell’s conducted by Li, Worch, Zhou, and Aguiton, they focused on whether or not “digital native” teachers would be more apt to integrating technology in the classroom. They define digital natives as the millennials who are socially connected, digitally literate, value immediacy, and are the “native speakers of the digital language” (1). Digital natives also tend to “think differently from the rest of us. They develop hypertext minds. They leap around. It’s as though their cognitive structures were parallel, not sequential” (3). While I agree that the millennial generation does spend a significant amount of time on their digital devices, I cannot agree with the concept of a person developing a “hypertext mind.” Landow defines hypertext as linking “one passage of verbal discourse to images, maps, diagrams, and sound as easily to another verbal passage” (3). These linkages look more like a tree’s branches or a river’s estuary, not parallel lines nor a list of sequences.

Li et al. also found “two types of barriers that may affect teachers’ technology use: external and internal” (1). The external barriers are similar to Blackwell’s first-order barriers: inadequate access to technology, time, training, and support. Li’s Internal barriers are also similar to Blackwell’s second-order barriers: underlying attitudes and beliefs toward technology. Li, et al. conclude that regardless of being considered digital natives, “participants’ use of technology in the classroom was significantly correlated with their self-efficacy, perceived computer skills, and technology access and support” (6). 

(Scholastic.com – edited)

Regardless of whether a digital native or traditional teacher is beginning the process of integrating one-to-one technology in the classroom, the “technology advancements of the past decade have resulted in a plethora of digital tools that promise to make the classroom more efficient and effective” (Frey and Fisher, 54). In the past teachers have uploaded data into their computers during prep periods or after school hours, myself included. Now, it seems more and more teachers are roaming the classroom “using tablets to present content, gather data, and keep (anecdotal or observational) records” (Frey and Fisher, 54). Why shouldn’t students be able to do the same? Allow students to hunker down anywhere in the classroom (for example my classroom offered bean bags in two corners, two small rug areas with pillows, a rocking chair, and a “thinking spot”) with their laptop and work on an assignment or project. “Research on incorporating technology into early childhood settings suggests that when it is used effectively and appropriately, it has the potential to increase the likelihood that children will participate interactively with the curriculum.” (Fenty and Anderson, 59)

Fenty and Anderson reviewed multiple research studies of students using digital narratives to either present content or demonstrate understanding of specific topics. They defined digital narratives as being a multimedia presentation genre that uses developmentally appropriate videos, audio, music, and images (59). “They (digital narratives) serve a variety of instructional purposes that range from capturing a child’s individual experiences (e.g., building a castle in the block area during free play), documenting a class-wide experience (e.g., a field trip in the community or special event in the classroom), or reinforcing content knowledge (e.g., creating a video that recounts student understanding of living and non-living things)” (Fenty and Anderson, 59). The research revealed that students showed a “deeper content understanding, increased participation and engagement with the classroom curriculum, and increased instances of student reflection about their work after exposure to digital narratives” (60).

Fenty’s and Anderson’s results seem to coincide with Eyman’s thoughts on digital rhetoric: “digital rhetoric (narrative) needs to provide methods for understanding and using systems of distribution and publication” (12). I think that when Eyman introduced his chapter on theory, he understood the overwhelmingly “wide range of digital domains and contexts that digital rhetoric (narrative) may engage… that, like visual rhetoric (narrative), digital rhetoric (narrative) should be viewed as a field that engages multiple…  methods rather than a singular… framework” (1). Teachers have far too many applications to choose from and typically, rely on those either purchased or mandated by the school district for use. This is especially true in the literacies. “Bringing new literacies into a classroom is not an easy task for a teacher, especially when two-thirds of teachers feel underprepared to use the technology” (Barone and Wright, 292). 

(Kharbach)

When teachers take the extra time to learn the technology and effectively integrate technology use to enhance curriculum instruction, the benefits abound. Fenty and Anderson discovered that “digital narratives can help support young children’s engagement in and reflections on classroom activities, while offering additional opportunities to integrate language and literacy with other content curricula” (60). Unfortunately, while teachers are encouraged to use technology to enhance instruction and teach children new digital literacies, assessments have not been restructured to meet those new learning environments. Barone writes the “biggest hurdle when considering new technologies and student learning is that most assessments evaluate traditional literacy and content knowledge” (301).

Using different software applications to encourage children to create digital narratives allows for a friendly classroom environment that encourages students to work to their strengths. Fenty and Anderson encouraged the participants in their study to use Photostory, a Windows application that can be purchased and downloaded. It allows you to import images, videos, record voices, and import music files to create the narrative. In Barone’s article, Todd Wright taught his students to use  Internet applications such as KidBiz.com for reading comprehension prompts and Gaggle.net so students could instant message their partners based on a different type of prompt. Wright also encouraged his students to use word processing software, and a simple drawing application to demonstrate vocabulary word understanding. When discussing whether or not a teacher should be using one-to-one technology in the classroom, Wright’s opinion is absolutely. “There is a steep learning curve at the beginning… Teachers will see that giving a laptop to a student results in greater engagement. Greater engagement equals higher achievement. End of story” (302).

(Lodi USD)

It is difficult to say, for certain, for certain how many teachers were using one-to-one technology before COVID-19 forced the nation into distance learning. Not every single student was issued a digital device prior to or during isolation (K-4 students in Jamestown Public Schools in the city I work in were not.) It is also difficult to be completely accurate in assessing teacher attitudes towards technology when the studies rely on self-reporting, as Li, et al did. Should teachers be using technology in the classroom? In my humble opinion, yes. If the goal of our nation is for our children to have the skills to be considered “workforce ready,” then teachers don’t get a choice.

I leave you with a meme I recently created using https://imgflip.com/memegenerator to convey that point.

Works Cited

Barone, Diane, and Wright, Todd. “Literacy Instruction With Digital and Media Technologies.” The Reading Teacher, vol 64, no. 4, 2008, pp. 292-302.      http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.stonybrook.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=301daa64-3835-4dda-91a8-325a8e0806b5%40sessionmgr4008.  Accessed 27 April 2020.

Blackwell, Courtney, K., Lauricella, Alexis R., & Wartella, Ellen. “Factors Influencing Digital Technology Use in Early Childhood Education.” Computers & Education, vol 77, 2014, pp. 82-90, https://www-sciencedirect-com.proxy.library.stonybrook.edu/science/article/pii/S0360131514000980?via%3Dihub. Accessed 27 April 2020.

Cuban, Larry. “Business and Schools: Cartoons*.” Larry Cuban on School Reform and Classroom Practice, 30 Aug. 2012, larrycuban.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/business-and-schools-cartoons/. Accessed 7 May 2020.

Eyman, Douglas. Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice. University of Michigan Press, 2015.

Fenty, Nicole S. and Anderson, Elizabeth. “Creating Digital Narratives: Guideline for Early Childhood Educators.” Childhood Education, vol. 92, no. 1, 2016, pp. 58-63, https://www-tandfonline-com.proxy.library.stonybrook.edu/doi/full/10.1080/00094056.2016.1134243. Accessed 25 April 2020.

Frey, Nancy and Fisher, Douglas. “Making the Most of Digital Tools: the right technology can help increase efficiency and effectiveness in the classroom and beyond.” Principal Leadership, vol.15, no. 2, 2014, pp.54-56, https://go-gale-com.proxy.library.stonybrook.edu/ps/i.do?&id=GALE|A392573189&v=2.1&u=sunysb&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w. Accessed 28 April 2020.

Kharbach, Med. “Some Good Windows Educational Apps to Try Out.” Educational Technology and Mobile Learning, 5 Oct. 2019, www.educatorstechnology.com/2019/10/some-good-windows-educational-apps-to.html. Accessed 8 May 2020.

Landow, George. Hypertext 3.0. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.

Liberman, Wili. “Are Teachers Afraid of Technology?” Education for Today and Tomorrow | L’Education Aujourd’hui Et Demain, teachmag.com/archives/8430. Accessed 9 May 2020.

Li, Lan., Worch, Eric., Zhou, YuChun., and Aguiton, Rhonda. “How and Why Digital Generation Teachers Use Technology in the Classroom: An Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Study.” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, vol.9, no. 2, 2015, Article 9, https://doaj.org/article/bcf4b6609fa444c29d5661a1aa957eef. Accessed 27 April 2020.

O’Byrne, W. Ian. “TILE-SIG Feature: One-to-One Computing…What If I’m Not the One Being Included?” International Literacy Association, International Reading Association, 16 Nov. 2012, www.literacyworldwide.org/blog/the-engaging-classroom/teaching-tips/literacy-daily/2012/11/16/tile-sig-feature-one-to-one-computing-what-if-i’m-not-the-one-being-included-. Accessed 7 May 2020.

“1:1 Home to School Connection Initiative.” Lodi Unified School District, www.lodiusd.net/district/departments/business-services/technology/1to1. Accessed 9 May 2020.

“PRIMARY SOURCES Third Edition.” Primary Sources Third Edition | Scholastic Inc., 2013, www.scholastic.com/primarysources/teachers-on-collaboration.htm. Accessed 9 May 2020.