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.

 

 

 

 

 

Teacher Beliefs Vs. Technology Integration

Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontier in Our Quest for Technology Integration? is an article examining teacher beliefs concerning technology. The author attempts to reflect upon teachers’ beliefs and make connections between their comfort level of technology, and use (with students) of incorporation in the classroom. Varieties of surveys examined teacher beliefs, though the nature of a belief is something that in and of itself is often immeasurable. Nevertheless, the author truly tries to form a link between teacher beliefs and practice, with the result being that technology incorporation is on a low-level scale. Low-level is referred to in the article as using computers to express oneself through written language (i.e.: word processing), using the internet for research purposes, and/or using computers for incentives/rewards, and drill/practice activities (i.e.: use of language, math software). In sum, the author’s conviction is that teacher beliefs need to change, before practice can change. In a surprising twist, professional development is not the answer (according to the author). Overall, the majority of my cohorts felt that the article was a breath of fresh air, after which the majority of technology-centered articles seem

“to cast scorn on teachers for not jumping into new tech like it was a pool of happiness” (Ted Vasel, SPU discussion).

I think the majority of people assume, as I once did, that teachers fail to incorporate higher levels of technology into their curriculum because they are either uncomfortable or don’t know enough about it. Several of my classmates saw this as the veteran teachers’ dilemma. Therefore, young, fresh-out-of-college teachers know technology, feel comfortable with it, and therefore use it, right? Wrong!

As the article continues, we find the disparity between lower-level technology skills and higher-level technology schools parallels a continuum of teacher-centered and student-centered learning. Therefore, we can conclude that teachers incorporate lower-level uses of technology into their curriculums, not because it is easier to use, but because teachers are in control (teacher-centered). A few statistics from the US Department of Education supports this claim. In 2003, well over 83% of teachers surveyed felt prepared enough to use technology in their classrooms. Furthermore, 80% felt as though they were ready to learn more in terms of incorporating higher levels of technology into their classrooms.

If this is all starting to add up, take it with a grain of salt. Because, according to Michigan Virtual University, only 1 in 9 teachers are tech-savvy enough to create a multimedia presentation, and work with spreadsheets & digital software. Moreover, of teachers interviewed, those that do consider themselves tech savvy (the 1 in every 9), feel the pressures of time constraints, lack of resources, and parental complaints.

This leaves me with an important thought on standards, specifically technology standards: we have standards; yes, but are they graded? Can I, as a teacher, justify the use of technology in my curriculum if I am not required to grade students, in their skill level, in this area?