Technology Use in K-12 Schools

A Large Scale Research Study on Technology in K-12 Schools: Technology Integration as it Relates to the National Technology Standards examines two large research studies, in an attempt to determine how technology is integrated in K-12 schools. Furthermore, the article attempts to determine the extend to which the technology being used in schools is making a difference in the education of students.  I pulled away from the article the clear fact that the U.S. is spending a lot of money integrating technology into schools, but to what extent is it helping our students (National Center for Educational Statistics)? Information obtained for the study included research from the NCES, the Teaching, Learning, and Computing Study, conducted by the Center for Research and Information Technology, and reported by Jay Becker, and the Chicago Consortium, with a method of comparing data collected from a research study in large Florida school district, with the TLC study. The flaws between the two comparisons however, suggested some bias. The Florida study, for example, examined teachers in only one school district with self-reported data. The TLC study examined multiple school districts and pre-selected teachers with a high level of technology integration that would purposefully respond. So, not only did the Florida study look at teachers in only one district, but the use of self-reported data is limiting, and as the author even suggests, “those teachers who voluntarily responded to the survey were perhaps more interested in computers than those teachers who did not respond” (page 504). Additionally, the two studies viewed “frequent use” of computers, somewhat differently. The TLC study defined “frequent use as “20+ uses by a typical student per academic year”, while the Florida study defined “frequent use” as “at least once a week” (page 504). Therefore, with the limitations of both studies, I took most of the statistics with a grain of salt. Some information however, was interesting enough to note. Like many of my cohorts, I was surprised that elementary teachers “were almost twice more likely to use computers as problem-solving and decision-making tools than were high school teachers” (page 500). The author suggests that elementary school teachers may have more flexibility in their scheduling, thus more time to complete lengthy projects, such as making a trip to a computer lab might require. As an elementary school teacher, I understand, and appreciate the long blocks of time I have available for lengthy projects, such as making a trip to the computer lab, might require.

Lauren Cartier, a classmate of mine, commented on the issue of technology standards as a graduation requirement:

“Some states [require] students to pass a technology course or technology skills test in order to graduate. Either way I think that it is essential that we assess these skills of our students in some way so that we know that the work we are doing as teachers in this area is working.”

I found myself thinking about graduation requirements, quite a bit as I was reading the article on technology integration as it relates to the National Educational Technology Standards. If shown that technological competencies, specifically the six student standards addressed by National Educational Technology Standards, is a requirement for success in the real world, I would agree that knowledge of technology be a requirement for graduation. However, since very few states are yet requiring students to pass computer skills assessment before graduation, it is difficult to know right now, what areas of technology should be taught in schools, let alone assessed and graded (page 491).

I completely agree with my classmate, that technology standards needed assessment as part of a graduation requirement. The assessment of technology standards for graduation should be different however, than are for a teacher assessing her/himself. I don’t believe we can assess ourselves and force our students’ gradations to be dependent upon whether we have succeeded in our teaching or not. I find it a little odd that we have standards in technology, though we do not assess student knowledge of them. As a kindergarten teacher, I find myself teaching the skills, but not assessing them, because there isn’t a grading standard for technology on the kindergarten grading report, in my district. Given that adequate knowledge and use of technology is a prerequisite to success in the post-high school years, a basic operation and social/ethical issues competency exam seems mandatory for candidacy of a high school diploma.

 

 

 

 

 

Digital Citizenship

Digital Citizenship: Addressing Appropriate Technology Behavior describes nine standards established by the Instructional Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), referred to as the National Education Technology Standards. Specifically designed to be exercised by students, they really are a set of common knowledge principles with which anyone having access to technology should be familiar. For those with particular curiosity, I’ll list them, though you’ll easily be able to assume the particulars embedded within them:

1. Etiquette: electronic standards of conduct or procedure

2. Communication: electronic exchange of information

3. Education: the process of teaching and learning about technology and the use of technology

4. Access: full electronic participation in society

5. Commerce: electronic buying and selling of goods

6. Responsibility: electronic responsibility for actions and deeds

7. Rights: those freedoms extended to everyone in a digital world

8. Safety: physical well-being in a digital technology world

9. Security (self-protection): electronic precautions to guarantee safety

I should note that modeling (the appropriate behaviors) was a recurrent theme among each of the standards, and rightfully so, was also a hot topic within our SPU online discussion.

Of particular interest to me, was the area of ‘Safety’, and its focus on ergonomics. For the purpose of my online discussion with classmates, I reviewed a few articles and found a bit of conflicting information. For example, according to the ISTE, ergonomics, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, eyestrain, and posture are major medical issues that can be linked to computer use. However, according to an article in Wired.com, “In addition to finding a relatively low rate of carpal tunnel syndrome in computer users,” J. Stevens, neurologist, said that there is “no significant differences between computer users who developed the syndrome and those who did not”.

I also explored UCLA’s ergonomics site, for information on general workplace (school place) ergonomics, and discovered on online self-assessment, for anyone who may be physically suffering from technology strains.

Of particular interest in my online conversations was the topic that school districts, (so it seems), are less interested in the issue of ergonomics, as they are with security (i.e.: antitheft). In other words, a hot topic on the discussion boards was the sentiment that school districts are quicker to purchase technology, than they are to fund the cabinets, tables, and chairs that will house the technology. Stationary pieces, such as furniture with anti-theft devices, tend to be more favorable to district personnel funding the decision-making.

Lastly, while it is obvious that varieties of forms of technology are still new, as is our ability to use it appropriately, many schools are finding themselves in the dilemma of the too-much-too-soon syndrome. They are simply unable to keep up with establishing the necessary barriers to make using technology safe.