Social Aspects of Technology in Education

Abstract

Technology in education is more than an advantage. While the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015) required US schools to graduate students with technology experience at an eighth grade level, specific education organizations have said that level is not enough. To be prepared for—and competitive in—a global workforce, students need to demonstrate technology skills that show advanced levels. Furthermore, access to technology education is not universal; as such, not all students will achieve even the minimum requirement. This is especially true for the students who do not have computers at home. In addition, teachers and librarians need administrative support in order to pursue professional development opportunities that lead to teaching advanced computer skills.

Overview

Innovations like Baby Einstein®, Leap Frog®, Microsoft Power Point®, and SMARTboards®, were created to further the education of people from infancy to adulthood. Those who cannot adequately utilize the innovations may have a crumbled foundation on which to contend with their peers. Almost every subject from preschool to college can utilize technology as an instrument of instruction, development, or function. And those who lack the skills to teach or implement the resources are left out of a continuous conversation that will become more extensive in the future. The most important topic of that conversation should be whether or not high school graduates are proficient enough in technology applications to earn jobs once they leave high school.

While many people view technology proficiency as being able to research journal articles, create spectacular looking presentations, or utilize databases, A Nation at Risk (1983)—a report created by the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE)—notes that many occupations require proficiency of a level beyond what is common to high school activity. Even in 1983, fields like "health care, medical science, energy production, food processing, construction, and the building, repair, and maintenance of sophisticated scientific, educational, military, and industrial equipment" were identified as those requiring levels of technology higher than what most high school graduates achieved (NCEE, as cited in Allen, p. 26).

Allen (2008) notes that since the A Nation at Risk report was published, the "student-to-computer ratio has certainly improved, from about 60-to-1 in 1983 to about 4-to-1 nationwide in 2007" (Office of Technology Assessment, 1988 (1983 data), Nagel, 2007 (2007 data), as cited in Allen, p. 611). The ratio improved again in 2008 with three students for every one desktop or laptop computer. As of 2018, several schools in the United States and across the world were implementing and experimenting with a one-to-one laptop program, with Maine being one of the first states to to do so in 2002; experts were still assessing the level of success of these programs (Doran & Herald, 2016). While this is a positive trend that shows a change toward allowing academic institutions the ability to develop and maintain technology curricula, it also promotes the disparity between haves and have-nots once students leave school, as many do not have computers at home.

In 2005, for example, only 11.4 percent of households with an income of $29,900 or lower had high-speed Internet access, while 62 percent of those with incomes of $100,000 or more had high-speed access (United States Government Accountability Office). As long as this informational playing field is not level, the inequity of access to educational resources will remain (Allen, 2008, p. 611). According to the Pew Research Center, in November 2016, 53 percent of adults making less than $30,000 used broadband internet at home while 93 percent of those making at least $75,000 used broadband internet at home (Pew Research Center, 2018).

The Partnership for Twenty-First Century Skills is an organization of public and private groups established in 2002 to create a standard for successful learning. The Partnership recommends that each state focus closely on the students who do not have access to technology, insisting that meeting the (technology) needs of such students requires a matter of policy (p. 20). Further, as research notes that students are more motivated in the classroom when the Internet and other technologies are utilized (Leu, 2002, as cited in Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008, p. 4), teachers also require support for improving their skills.

Many teachers still lack ongoing professional development support needed to fully integrate existing technology into instructional practice. States should support these professionals with sustained, strategic professional development that enables them to incorporate twenty-first century skills into their standards, curricula, and assessments (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008, p. 20).

More students than ever before can use computers at school; however, working at home is limited to those in specific income levels. Furthermore, depending on the budget of the school district, limitations with technology may not be exclusive to household incomes. The Partnership for 21st Century Skills and the National Education Association address this issue:

While most states and school districts have made remarkable progress in installing computers in schools, many still do not have ready access to the Internet or adequate technical support to make access reliable all day, every day. Today, desktop computers in classrooms represent the bare minimum in terms of technology equipment that schools need. Classroom telephones, laptops, wireless technology, scientific devices, and video conferencing centers for distance learning are just a few of the tools that can improve and expedite learning (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008, p. 20).

With regard to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which legislated that students achieve technological literacy by the eighth grade, the Partnership argued that "states need to think much bigger and go much further to prepare young people adequately for the future. Eighth-grade technology literacy is just a starting point" (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008, p. 10). The organization insists that,

[s]tandards must encompass more than technology proficiency, which is too narrow a skill for the world today. Instead, students must be competent in ICT [information and communication technology] literacy-using 21st century tools and learning skills (information and communication skills, thinking and problem solving skills, and interpersonal and self-directional skills) that will enable them to learn how to learn in school and throughout their lives (p. 10).

It is not clear within the 21st Century Skills document how the Partnership defines literacy with regard to information and communication technologies (ICT). As such, other terms that are defined may show how different levels of proficiency are considered when working with technology is concerned. Computer literacy is the most basic form of computer proficiency. Someone who is computer literate can understand rudimentary applications, like Power Point® and Microsoft Word®. A slightly more advanced person would have information literacy in order to determine which information resources are needed in various contexts. This is a necessary skill since technology is a constantly changing field. Finally, someone with information technology literacy (ITL) is effective at utilizing various technologies. Someone at this advanced level can write HTML code or can find a lost file within data storage components.

As far as the National Education Association (NEA) is concerned, students "need to know how to learn new skills as quickly as technology creates new challenges" (2008). While such skills do not require the acquisition of information technology literacy (ITL), it is essential that all students acquire the skills necessary to utilize different technologies according to the context of the tasks they are completing. Indeed, the information-literate student will be successful with many applications and with various technologies. To create an information-literate student body (and, ultimately, workforce) the NEA (2008) takes the following stance concerning technology and education in the United States.

• More funding is needed at all levels to better integrate technology into schools and classrooms.
• The technology available to educators and students should be compatible with, and at least on the same level as, technology in general use outside of schools.
• Education technology budgets should reflect the importance of professional development. At least a third of all tech budgets should be reserved for school staff to become proficient in using and integrating technology into their classrooms.
• Educators themselves should be involved in decisions on planning, purchasing, and deploying education technology.
• Teacher education programs need to embrace educational technology and help prospective teachers use it effectively in the classroom.
• Technology should be deployed and applied equitably among all students and educators, regardless of geography or demographics.
• Students should also be taught the appropriate and safe use of technology. (National Education Association, 2008).

Further Insights

Required Technology. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), established in 1990, requires that all schools provide equal access to education for all students with documented learning or physical disabilities. Students with learning or physical disabilities are allowed what is known as accommodations—devices or services that level the playing field between the disability and the lack thereof for other students. For example, a student with attention deficit disorder (ADD) may require extra time for tests or a private testing room; someone with dyslexia or a visual impairment might need assistive technology to perform similarly to their peers. Computerized learning systems can scan texts, essays, and notes and present the information to students in the form of a digital voice. Students can take notes manually or within the system while the text or notes are being read. In addition, once the digital software becomes accustomed to students voice (pitch, speaking speed), the system actually types in large print and/or in various colors when necessary according to what the student has said.

Moreover, with specific programs,

[s]tudents can highlight key points and bookmark areas they feel are important; further, notes and highlights are easily copied and pasted to text files for later review. Either instructors or students may create audio CDs to facilitate listening to books "on the go." The program may also be used by students for writing assignments. For example, students can type their ideas into the program, use the spell-check function, and have the program read back the text so that they can self-edit their work… Spell-checking is available in multiple languages (Ludlow & Foshay, 2006, p. 79).

While students who do not know English as a first language are not granted "official" accommodations by schools, they can purchase the software for home use and practice language learning whenever they want. Many such programs provide dictionary and thesaurus utilization as well. What needs to be clear is that for students with disabilities, schools can provide access to these programs, usually within an academic service office. However, students with disabilities, as well as those learning English as a second language, have to purchase the software themselves. The accommodation is that their work with the assistive technology is accepted for a grade. Many of these software packages are costly and unaffordable for many, and while schools that purchase the technology can avert the cost of the programs through grants or waivers, individuals cannot.

Integrated Learning Systems (ILS). Integrated technology systems also assist with learning capabilities without the requirement of a documented disability: if a school purchases the software, teachers can work ILS lessons into already established or new classroom programming. What is beneficial about the programs is that in most cases, they offer a supplemental resource for student learning on an individualized basis. For example, if a fourth grader is reading at a sixth grade level but performs at grade level in other subjects, a learning system can provide the student with sixth grade reading assignments that test, review, and introduce more challenging material at an advanced level. Thus, the student is not bored by the classroom instruction (leveled at fourth graders) and is challenged by the material. The software has the capability to assess a student's work, and if the reading level does not increase, for example, the software will only provide reading activities within the level the student is currently attaining.

In addition, teachers input data for each student based on the student’s ability in certain subjects. Because programs are available in numerous subjects, students can work independently and at their level, which also allows for students to increase performance in weak subject areas as a way to catch up. Furthermore, each student's work is saved in each subject and within various lessons to facilitate beginning where the student left off. As the student logs back into the lesson, a review is offered and new information presented. Additionally, ILS software stores individualized scores within a database for the instructor's use. Thus, if there is a concept that several students do not understand, the teacher can provide instruction on that specific topic. Using ILS systems increases the technological ability of both instructors and students and keep class lessons on schedule while challenging stronger students and assisting weaker students. This is especially helpful in large classes.

Viewpoints

Keeping Current. According to Kenney (2008), the people expected to know the most about technology are librarians, sometimes referred to as media specialists. With technological advances occurring almost daily in education and research settings, it is nearly impossible to keep up with each change. Yet, someone has to in order for those resources to make the difference for which they were intended. Utilizing a school's database to access an online journal can be tricky to the new searcher. When intimidation sets in, discouraged students often ask for the assistance of the people behind the desk, the specialists.

Kenney (2008) suggests that experts in the field of library science keep current in two ways: The first is to review the latest research; the second involves developing proficiency with new programs and with new features of old programs as soon as changes or additions are made. Indeed, it is important to be able to maneuver through sites, document changes, and teach others to do the same. This involves the hands-on capabilities of someone who has worked with the technology advances that are changing constantly. In order for a library to be successful, then, librarians need to be supported by school administration and encouraged to access professional development opportunities.

Cyber Cheating. If online learning becomes even more prominent in high school courses, young teenagers will be facing the organization issues that come with not seeing a teacher for scheduled classes, time management, and procrastination to name two. In addition, teachers (and schools in general) will be balancing the concepts of student privacy and academic honesty. Several colleges require proof that the students enrolled in online courses are the same students submitting work for those courses. How is that kind of proof acquired? With technology.

Securexam Remote Proctor is a monitoring device utilized by many colleges and universities in their online courses. The device gathers a 360-degree image around the person taking the test and has the ability to scan fingerprints. If the student's fingerprint does not match the student’s print on file at the college, the student cannot continue with the test. The student is also prevented from visiting Internet sites while the test is in session.

Another monitoring device used by colleges and universities in their online courses is Proctor101, developed by Kryterion Incorporated. This system utilizes webcams that are linked to live proctors who monitor the test taker. Webcams must show the test taker’s face, computer screen, keyboard, mouse, and any allowed materials for the test. In addition, the system includes software that can recognize a student's typing ability, like whether or not he pauses between certain letters and how quickly he types. When a student's typing ability conflicts with the one he or she demonstrated at registration or his or her image does not match his or her enrollment photograph, he or she will be unable to take the exam. If, by chance, the student acts "suspiciously," the proctor can inhibit him or her from finishing the test and reports the activity to the course’s instructor.

Other systems that have been developed to confirm a test taker’s identity collect information from various databases—including property records and criminal histories—in order to test a student's knowledge of information specific to him or her, such as what street he or she lived on when he or she was five years old and what his or her first job was. Correct responses yield progression to the exam. This system does not use a camera.

While nobody wants students to cheat, there are several concerns regarding these systems. First, the cost or application requirements will limit accessibility. Second, Lori McNabb, assistant director of student and faculty services at the online division of the University of Texas, notes that "there's no evidence that cheating or fraud happens more often with… [online] students than with students in face-to-face classes" (Foster, 2008). Most course management systems store a bank of test questions that randomly generate distinctive exams for each student. In addition, teachers who require writing will agree that a student's writing style is almost as predictive as a fingerprint, making cheating identifiable without the use of a webcam. A final concern lies within legislation: If Congress requires monitoring of online testing, it could also require a specific type of system, forcing colleges and universities to purchase and maintain technology they may not want or want to budget for.

The Future. It is difficult to predict whether or not devices will be required to monitor younger students when they are testing at home. What is not difficult to determine is that technology is going to improve, and students, teachers, and employers will benefit. For those who are currently out of the technology loop, trying to get inside is going to become more difficult as each innovation does more, does it faster, and does it with less physical material than was previously thought possible. It seems that there will always be something new to learn when it comes to technology. While learning, people become ready for the rigors of higher education, steady employment, or advances in their careers, and more technology-literate people are produced. There is no standard for who should experience such learning, but there is the expectation that those who need to learn it will meet a standard of competence. In turn, there should also be the expectation that access to meet that standard is supplied as a universal policy.

Teachers and students need access to laptops and handheld devices, digital cameras and microscopes, Web-based video equipment, graphing calculators, and even weather-tracking devices. They need to become responsible and savvy users and purveyors of information. They need to know how to collaborate successfully across miles and cultures. The technology environment of today's public schools should match the tools and approaches of the work and civic life that students will encounter after graduation. This will ensure that schools stay relevant to today's students, as well as equip them for success in life after school ("Technology in Education," 2008).

Andrea Foster (2006) from the Chronicle of Higher Education notes that "students preparing to enter college are sorely lacking in the skills needed to retrieve, analyze, and communicate information that is available online." Without more than the minimum technological experience, some students will not be accepted into the colleges of their choice and will not be hired for positions in which they would be otherwise qualified. That is not the answer the US federal government or school administrators are willing to accept. However, without the financial backing of education institutions, teachers will not learn the technology they need to teach their students for increased proficiency.

Terms & Concepts

A Nation at Risk (1983): A report created by the National Commission on Excellence in Education focusing on education in the United States.

Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI): Teaching that incorporates the use of a computer (specific application, the Internet, course management systems) into a curriculum.

Computer Literacy: Understanding the basic processes of computers and technology and being able to use those processes.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): Legislation established in 1990 that requires equal access to education for any student with learning or physical disabilities.

Information and Communications Technology (ICT): A field of education that requires students to learn skills (and comprehend) in various sectors.

Information Literacy: The ability to determine what information is needed for what purpose - as different contexts require different objectives - and having the ability to use that information appropriately.

Information Technology Literacy (ITL): The advanced capability of manipulating technology for various purposes (writing HTML, taking apart a hard drive, communicating, managing information).

Integrated Learning Systems (ILS): Software or hardware packages containing different content, such as reading, mathematics, or social studies. Assessment tools measure and monitor the delivery of the content.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): Federal legislation created to ensure that all students (regardless of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or disability) have access to instructional approaches that have been proven to be successful; it was replaced in 2015 by the Every Student Succeeds Act.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills: The primary national education/business affiliation promoting the need for twenty-first century skills in American education.

Technology Education: The study of technology (understanding its uses, developing skills for proficiency).

US Department of Education: Federal organization created to promote achievement in US education as a competitive global resource; ensures equal access to education.

Bibliography

Allen, L. (2008). The technology implications of a nation at risk. Phi Delta Kappan, 89 , 608–610. Retrieved July 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31557156&site=ehost-live

Doran, L., & Herald, B. (2016, May 18). 1-to-1 laptop initiatives boost student scores, study finds. Education Week, 11. Retrieved March 8, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=115577914&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Foster, A. (2006, Oct). Students fall short on 'Information Literacy,' Educational Testing Services finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved September 15 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22984125&site=ehost-live

Kenney, B. (2008). Leaping into technology. School Library Journal, 54 , 11. Retrieved July 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31960264&site=ehost-live

Kumar, M. (2012). The new landscape for the innovative transformation of education. Social Research, 79, 619–630. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=82829448

Ludlow, B. & Foshay, J. (2006). Kurzweil 3000. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21 79–81. Retrieved September 15 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22291460&site=ehost-live

McNeil, P. W. (1998). Implementation of the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and the Perkins Act of 1998. Memo to State Directors of Adult Education and State Directors of Vocational Education, U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 26, 2008 from the U. S. Department of Education website: http://www.ed.gov/policy/sectech/guid/cte/implemen.html

Nickolai, D. H., Hoffman, S. G., & Trautner, M. (2012). Teaching & learning guide for 'can a knowledge sanctuary also be an economic engine? the marketing of higher education as institutional boundary work'. Sociology Compass, 6, 596–600. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77059620

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2008). The road to twenty-first century learning: Policymakers' guide to twenty-first century skills. NEA and the twenty-first Century. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from NEA website: http://www.21stcenturyskills.org/downloads/P21_Policy_Paper.pdf

Pew Research Center. (2018, February 5). Internet/broadband fact sheet. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/

Rivera, C. J., Hudson, M. E., Weiss, S. L., & Zambone, A. (2017). Using a multicomponent multimedia shared story intervention with an iPad to teach content picture vocabulary to students with developmental disabilities. Education & Treatment of Children, 40(3), 327–352. Retrieved March 8, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=125094247&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Still, K., & Gordon, J. P. (2012). Focusing on teacher perspectives through dialogue about the meaningful integration of literacy & technology. National Social Science Journal, 38, 80–97.Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77668378

Technology in Education. (2008). National Education Association (NEA). Retrieved July 22, 2008 from NEA website: http://www.nea.org/technology/index.html

Trotter, A. (2008). Online education cast as 'Disruptive Innovation.' Education Week, 27 , 1–13. Retrieved July 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=32090549&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Berrett, J. (2008). Are we there yet? Technology & Children, 12 , 3. Retrieved July 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31549677&site=ehost-live

Childress, V. & Rhodes, C. (2008). Engineering student outcomes for grades 9 - 12. Technology Teacher, 67 , 5–12. Retrieved July 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31707045&site=ehost-live

Christensen, Horn & Johnson (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. McGraw-Hill Education: Europe. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Dowd, H., & Green, P. (2016). Classroom management in the digital age: Effective practices for technology-rich learning spaces. Irvine, CA: EDTechTeam Press.

Ferreira, G. M. d. S. (2008). Crossing borders: Issues in music technology education. Journal of Music, Technology & Education, 1 , 23–35. Retrieved July 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31186999&site=ehost-live

Fox, N. J. (2011). Boundary objects, social meanings and the success of new technologies. Sociology, 45, 70–85. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=58014071

Jones, K. (2008). Ideas for integrating technology education into everyday learning. Technology & Children, 12 , 20–21. Retrieved July 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31549686&site=ehost-live

Jacobsen, M., Clifford, P. & Friesen, S. (2002). Preparing teachers for technology integration: creating a culture of inquiry in the context of use. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2, 363–88.

Leu, D. J., Jr. (2002). The new literacies: Research on reading instruction with the Internet and other digital technologies. . In J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.). What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Litowitz, L. S. & Warner, S. A. (2008). Technology education: A contemporary perspective. Phi Delta Kappan, 89 , 519–521. Retrieved July 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31383226&site=ehost-live

Nagel, D. (2007). Groups respond to proposed EETT cuts. T.H.E. Journal. Retrieved July 26, 2008 from website: http://thejournal.com/articles/20166

National Commission on Educational Excellence. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 10.

Office of Technology Assessment. (1988). Power On! New Tools for Teaching and Learning. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, OTA-SET-379, 7

Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 1510–1529. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90161122

Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 1510–1529. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90161122

United States Government Accountability Office. (2006). Broadband deployment is extensive throughout the United States, but it is difficult to assess the extent of deployment gaps in rural areas. Report to Congressional Committees, Telecommunications. Retrieved July 26, 2008 from GAO website: www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-426.

Wynn, G. (2008). Avenues to success--Developing a thriving technology education program. Technology Teacher, 67 , 29–33. Retrieved July 21, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=28833126&site=ehost-live