Literature Review (draft)

Due to the widespread availability of personal computers, many attempts have been made to integrate technology into the elementary classroom. Results vary from positively affecting student learning to taking time away from more traditional content. Studies have been done to determine the most effective ways of integrating computers into the classroom in order to maximize student learning.

When technology was first introduced into classrooms, reformers focused on the innovation instead of solving the problem of how to integrate technology into the curriculum. Many people thought that computers would magically make teaching easier. However, technology was not the “silver bullet.” Instead, it added a layer of complexity and was yet another thing that teachers had to learn and manage. Only over a long period of time, as teachers’ beliefs about learning changed, they began to find strategic ways to use technology to help students learn(Sandholtz, Ringstaff, & Dwyer, 1997).

In 1998, The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) published a set of educational technology standards in which computers are used as a tool to promote creativity, productivity, and effective communication skills (Green & Brown, 2002). These standards created a starting point for many teachers on what their students should know about technology and be able to do with technology. The creation of these standards was a big step forward, but even today, there is much discussion about how to integrate these standards into other areas of the elementary curriculum such as math, science, and language arts.

The best age at which children should begin working with computers is unclear. While it is widely agreed that computers can be used to enhance learning in grades 4-12, there is controversy over the extent to which younger children should be exposed to the technology. Child development experts consider it crucial to stimulate the five senses of children before introducing something as technical and abstract as a computer. In fact, children in this concrete-operational stage of development learn best when manipulating objects in the human and physical world(Oppenheimer, 2003). Thus, according to Oppenheimer (2003), much of the classroom time in grades K-3 should be devoted to concrete learning. He does allow that in upper elementary grades, computers can be used as a great learning tool, if they are used properly.

Most experts agree that the circumstances in which computers are used in the classroom determine whether they positively influence student learning. Some computers sit in classrooms collecting dust. Other computers are used for drill as glorified workbooks. However, when computers are used as technological tools to collect, organize, and analyze data; to enhance presentations; to conduct simulations; and to solve complex problems, technology has the potential to fundamentally alter teaching and learning(Sandholtz et al., 1997).

Teachers must learn to decide when the computer is the most effective tool for teaching and when it is not. “It is important that learner outcomes drive the use of technology, not vice-versa”(Ivers & Pierson, 2003, p. 38). “Technology should not be taught in isolation, but used as a tool to help students achieve academic goals”(Ivers & Pierson, 2003, p. 114). Too often, computers are used as a reward for good behavior or in other superficial ways. Computers should be used to support specific learning objectives. “Knowing how computers can help students learn is the first step in understanding when to use computers”(Ivers & Pierson, 2003, p. 115).

Green agrees that in order to use technology as a tool to increase student learning, well-defined objectives need to be articulated ahead of time. Traditional content objectives should be incorporated into the lesson plan from the start. Furthermore, assessment must not be overlooked; methods for evaluating the technology-based projects need to be developed from the start and communicated to the students(Green & Brown, 2002).

Choosing the right technology is also important. Most software designed specifically for educational purposes focuses on basic skill development. By contrast, tool software including word processing, spreadsheets, databases, and multimedia applications can lead to great opportunities for student critical thinking(Sandholtz et al., 1997). Some of the best software supports a constructivist approach to learning by emphasizing inquiry, problem solving, decision making, critical thinking, and reflection. When used correctly, multimedia production tools can enable students to construct knowledge that is meaningful, applicable, and memorable(Ivers & Pierson, 2003).

Sandholtz (1997) describes four key conditions necessary for technology to improve education. First, teachers need to confront their own beliefs about learning and the usefulness of different instructional methods. Next, teachers must recognize that computers are one tool among many, and they are only useful when incorporated in a meaningful curricular framework. Third, teachers need to create a culture that supports risk and experimentation. Finally, teachers must recognize that technology integration is a long-term, challenging process. Meaningful technology integration takes patience and persistence.

The proper support is another necessary ingredient towards using computers effectively. While many school districts allocate funds toward computers and software, there is often a lack of funds for professional development and ongoing support. In order to maximize the potential of the technology, teachers must be provided with training, access to support professionals, and a collaborative environment in which they can interact with other teachers using similar technology. Without this support, the purchasing of hardware and software may turn out to be a poor investment(Sandholtz et al., 1997).

Sandholtz (1997) reports that teachers who took steps to incorporate technology into their daily routines saw a clear, positive change in their students. Student engagement, productivity, and technical competency increased. Writing fluency increased, and the teachers observed the development of problem-solving and critical thinking skills. Students were more often working together to solve problems. Teachers began to have higher expectations of their students. Finally, teachers managed to reach students who had not excelled during traditional approaches, while traditional model students were being challenged by the new open-ended questions.

Despite the existence of best practices and standards, technology can be misused or ignored by educators who do not know how technology can benefit them or their students(Ivers & Pierson, 2003). Oppenheimer (2003) describes two very different classroom experiences. In one classroom, students worked together using both online and physical resources to predict accurately the results of a gubernatorial election. In the other classroom, one that was part of the Co-nect Program, organized around modern technology, students were working on PowerPoint presentations to describe the powers of Congress. One of the brightest students in the class proudly displayed his presentation to Oppenheimer (2003) and explained that he had spent seventeen hours on the project. Seven hours had been spent on research and writing. The rest had been spent on refining the graphics. This was an eleventh grade class, and the content of the presentation was on par with what would be produced with pencil and paper by seventh or eighth graders. Oppenheimer (2003) uses these examples to show that classroom computer use spans from encouraging critical thinking to wasting precious classroom time. He argues that the ten hours spent refining graphics should have been devoted towards actual content. It is an unfortunate reality that presentation software such as PowerPoint and other technology tools are similarly misused in classrooms across the country. So much time is spent on making things “look pretty” at the expense of students learning.

Edward Tufte (2003) shares Oppenheimer’s (2003) views on the use of PowerPoint in schools. He feels that the structure of presentation software forces the students to dumb down their writing in order to fit on a small slide. A report that once might have been three pages long is stripped and edited into a list of vague bullet points on a few slides. He argues that teachers are doing students a disservice by replacing papers with presentation software. According to Tufte, “The popular PowerPoint templates (ready-made designs) usually weaken verbal and spatial reasoning, and almost always corrupt statistical analysis”(Tufte, 2003, p. 3). The software results in “foreshortening of evidence and thought,…conspicuous decoration…, a preoccupation with format not content, and an attitude of commercialism that turns everything into a sales pitch”(Tufte, 2003, p. 10). A typical elementary school presentation has 10-20 words and a piece of clip art on each slide, with 3-6 slides. This results in the writing of about 80 words for an entire week of work. Tufte recommends that the students would be better off taking a class trip or writing an illustrated essay.

Green (2002) contributes a more positive view on presentation software and insists that this type of project can be incorporated into the curriculum. He suggests that multimedia production and media literacy skills need not be developed in a “content vacuum.” The school’s standard curriculum content should be integrated into each multimedia production project:
A multimedia project should not be viewed as taking time away from more traditional curriculum content. It should be something that causes students to get excited about learning more about the traditional content and to apply the most basic skills of writing, reading, and calculating in a way that is immediately relevant…It has been our experience as teachers that most students look at traditional content with ‘fresh eyes and ears’ when innovative technologies become part of the presentation.(Green & Brown, 2002, p. 16)

A quantitative study by Becker (2000) showed that teachers who prioritize the use of presentation software, such as Microsoft Powerpoint, report a higher in-class and out-of-class use of computers. He argues that:
When students can be found to be taking their school work seriously enough to be investing their energy in academic work outside of class time, then, whether extrinsically motivated by grades or intrinsically motivated by sincere interest in accomplishment, schools have succeeded in [breaking a hole in the wall between the teenagers’ world and the adult world](Becker, 2000, p. 2).
Similarly, a qualitative study by Keeler (1996) showed that the introduction of networked instructional computers in the elementary classroom positively affected teacher attitudes, teaching strategies, classroom climate, the role of the teacher, and the attitudes of students. However, nothing was said about the impact on actual student learning. Students were clearly happier, but were they learning more? These studies clearly show that students are motivated by technology, yet they do not prove that the students are learning more than they would if they were to experience more traditional means of teaching. Becker suggests that “it is widely understood that students’ attention, effort, and engagement in academic tasks is a critical intervening variable in determining [an increase in students’ subject-matter understandings and competencies]”(Becker, 2000, p. 3). He fails to cite a study that proves this concept.

Green (2002) is another proponent of presentation software. Similarly, he suggests that one of the most compelling reasons to incorporate multimedia into the classroom is the excitement it generates among students. Additionally, he argues that student-produced multimedia projects can be used to help students develop key visual and media literacy skills by providing students experience with the different components of media and various ways of presenting information(Green & Brown, 2002).

Most experts agree that technology has a place in the elementary classroom, and it can be a useful instructional tool if used properly. While there is much conflict over the proper use of presentation software, there is general agreement that technology needs to be tightly integrated into learning objectives. Unfortunately, this is not the reality in many classrooms today. In my own pre-practicum experience, the computer sat in the corner, never once turned on. Much work remains to be done on educating teachers in the proper integration of technology.

I will close with an important reminder. While using any internet-based technology with children, it is imperative to keep in mind the rules of cyber safety. A child’s identity should never be revealed online, photographs should be properly edited to conceal identity of the child, and photographs should never be linked to any personally identifiable information. In this world of information overload, we must do everything we can to protect our students.

References

Becker, H. J. (2000). Pedagogical motivations for student computer use that lead to student engagement. Educational Technology, 40(5 (Sept.-Oct.)), 5-17.
Green, T. D., & Brown, A. (2002). Multimedia projects in the classroom : A guide to development and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Ivers, K. S., & Pierson, M. (2003). A teacher's guide to using technology in the classroom. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
Oppenheimer, T. (2003). The flickering mind : The false promise of technology in the classroom, and how learning can be saved (1st ed.). New York: Random House.
Sandholtz, J. H., Ringstaff, C., & Dwyer, D. C. (1997). Teaching with technology : Creating student-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
Tufte, E. R. (2003). The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, Conn.: Graphics Press.