Technology in the Elementary Classroom

Running head: TECHNOLOGY AND THE ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM 1

Technology and the Elementary Classroom

Kimberley Eschler

American College of Education

TECHNOLOGY AND THE ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM 2

Technology and the Elementary Classroom

Technology in the classroom is an extremely focused area of education. State

governments, school districts, principals, classroom teachers, and parents, have the

perception that students will acquire greater learning and higher engagement if more

technology is present in the classroom. This paper will explore the amount of funds

being set aside for technology, students perceptions of technology in a public

elementary classroom, review information from the study of the adolescent brain, and

how technology may not be beneficial across all ages.

Funding Technology in Learning

In March of 2015, Representative Jack Draxler of the Utah House of

Representatives sponsored House Bill 54 (HB54). This bill was asking for a half percent

tax increase from the Income Tax Growth Account within the Education Fund to fund

additional technology and professional development (Utah State Legislature, 2015).

HB54 also proposed a Pay for Performance Incentive Pay Program, because many

believe with the proper technology and training students are going to be achieving

higher proficiency on standardized tests and teacher pay should be tied to student

performance.

Davis School District (DSD) in Northern Utah is the second largest school district

in Utah with eighty-eight schools and 69,185 students enrolled in the 2014-2015 school

year (Davis School District, 2015). DSD is spending 7.82% of their total budget on

technology (undefined on details) in 2015; this is an increase of $327,000 over the 2014

school year (Davis School District, 2015). Bluff Ridge Elementary school is one of the

sixty elementary schools within DSD. In the Bluff Ridge 2014-2015 School


Improvement Plan (SIP), for goal number three of quality staffing, a budget total of

$18,300 was to be spent on audio enhancement and technology support; 25.7% of the

SIP allowances (Bluff Ridge Elementary, 2015). The 2015-2016 SIP budgeted $3,000

for software and $8,000 for projectors, Apple TV’s, and additional technology devices;

19.3% of the SIP allowances (Bluff Ridge Elementary, 2015).

The above statistics are a very small picture inside the amount of resources

allocated to provide more technology to school age students. Integrated technology is

expected to be more than teaching students basic computer skills; the expectation is

that students are going to be able to reach deeper, more enhanced learning with active

engagement and connection to real-world experiences. Through integrating more

technology, the desire is to allow growth by incorporating projects that allow students to

create paths for analysis and problem-solving skills with the tools of the current

workforce.

The resources wanted for student learning, and those currently provided, are

astonishing. The driving force from the government to local parent-teacher associations

is to get more technology into the hands of students. It is a huge undertaking, but is it

worth it? Do students learn more? Do students learn better with access to technology?

Are students more engaged? Do students want this technology?

Research and Data

To find out if students want technology or feel more engaged, a student survey

was created. The American College of Education follows The Human Subjects

Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements. In addition, Davis School District has a

research request approval process. Once approved, permission was allowed to ask


teachers if they would like to participate; those classes willing were given a permission

slip for students’ parents to complete.

Bluff Ridge Elementary School in Syracuse, Utah has a student population of 953

students, kindergarten through sixth grade. Bluff Ridge has low diversity with 93.8%

Caucasian students and a relativity low-risk factor of 16.7% economically

disadvantaged, .2% English Language Learners, and 10% receiving special education

services (Bluff Ridge Elementary, 2015).

Results of Student Research

Of the forty-three teachers at Bluff Ridge, there are eleven classrooms with one-

to-one desktop, tablet, or iPad technology. Of the forty-three teachers, thirty-seven were

invited to take one of two surveys. The first survey is four questions intended for non-

one-to-one classrooms, and the second is seven questions for current one-to-one

classrooms. After some discussion with first-grade teachers, it was decided that first-

graders would not be able to articulate or type enough to take the anonymous online

survey. Seven teachers were interested in participating and sent home permission slips

for parent authorization. Of those seven teachers, forty-four students in non-one-to-one

classrooms answered the survey, and fifty-nine students in one-to-one classrooms

answered the survey. A consideration to keep in mind is the overall effectiveness of a

classroom teacher either with or without the one-to-one technology. Individual teacher

effectiveness with technology is something for future evaluation, and for the purpose of

this finding report, the focus will be on the student’s perception of the technology and

how it is used in their classes.


Non-one-to-one Classroom Survey Results

1. The first question was “Would you like to have a one to one classroom? Why?”

Of the forty-four students who answered, twenty-nine said yes, and fifteen said

no. An interesting note, the students who said no, left reasons for why. The

answer for why students chose no was “no, I like to be with other kids”, “No.

Because I like to be involved in group activities, They help me learn better”. The

second most frequent student answer was “i would not, in 4th grade we all played

on them instead of work(ing)”, and “no, because it can be distracting for the kids”.

2. The second question was “Do you have technology at home that you use?” Not

surprising for this community, the answer was one-hundred percent, yes.

3. Question three “What grade are you in?”

Grade of surveyed student

Number of students in non-one-to-one classrooms

Second 20Third 0Forth 0Fifth 11Sixth 13

4. The fourth question was “Have you ever been in a one to one classroom?” Thirty-

three students said no, and eleven said yes. A notable finding from the surveyed

fifth-grade students, who are currently in non-one-to-one classrooms but were in

one-to-one classrooms in the prior year, was that nine out of eleven would not

like to be in a one-to-one classroom again. Seventy-eight percent of students

who were in one-to-one classrooms in fourth grade, feel their fifth-grade, non-

one-to-one classroom is more engaging.


One-to-one Classroom Survey Results

1. The first question “Do you like working in a one to one classroom? Why?”

Overwhelmingly, students currently in the one-to-one classroom environment are

enjoying it. Ninety-eight percent said yes, and only one student who responded

with “No because it gets old.”

2. The second question “Do you have technology at home that you use?” Again, the

answer was one-hundred percent, yes.

3. The third question “Do you feel you are learning more in a one to one classroom?

Why?” Fifty-one of the fifty-nine students responded yes to this question.

Comments from students included “Because it is nice to have things to use all

the time”, “So people won’t look at your paper”, and “Yes Because it’s easier to

not share than to share”.

4. The fourth question “What programs or app do you most enjoy learning from?

Why?” In 2014-2015, Davis School District adopted a new Language Arts

program from McGraw-Hill called Reading Wonders. In 2015-2016, third-grade

through sixth-grade have adopted a new district created pilot math program,

which is supplemented by the use of three online math programs; Think Through

Math (TTmath), Spatial-Temporal Math (STmath), and Math Mater. Other

applications and sites used are SpellingCity.com, Raz-Kids.com, IXL.com, Learn

Zillion, and Ultra Key. The three math programs came out on top for favorite

tools; reasons included “It is more challenging”, because it gets harder and

challenges you”, and “it is fun and helps me learn.”


5. The fifth question “What programs don’t you like? Why?” Many of the same

programs and apps were mentioned in question five as question four. Learn

Zillion was the least liked because it was difficult to find the videos and students

would rather have their instruction from the classroom teacher.

6. The sixth question “What grade are you in?”

Grade of surveyed student

Number of students in one-to-one classrooms

Second 0Third 0Forth 22Fifth 15Sixth 22

7. The seventh question “Have you ever been in a one to one classroom before this

year? Twenty-five responded no, twenty responded yes. In the one-to-one

classroom, seventy-eight percent did not feel the technology benefited them

enough to want it again. One could extrapolate that those students who wanted

one-to-one classes asked for a specific teacher or maybe the complication of a

year-round track schedule has some effect on classroom placement; all

questions that are not able to be answered in this paper. What seems to stand

out is that students appear to like the environment they are currently in.

Summary of Findings

The questions posed in this paper are: Do student learn more? Do students learn

better with access to technology? Are students more engaged? Do students want this

technology? Are the time, cost, and results of technology in the classroom worth it is, a

vast question that would require a much longer study. An additional project would be to

follow students who have been in one-to-one classrooms and gather data of their end of


year summative tests, versus students who have been in non-one-to-one classrooms.

An additional project would be to follow a handful of students through their schooling

and at the end of each school year, gather data on their learning experience with the

use of technology from that school year.

From the data collected it seems the older students want and like the technology.

Students comments indicate they like the one-to-one classrooms because the learning

is differentiated and takes place at their pace. For example, one student wrote, “...

because you can do it yourself and you don’t have to watch your teacher it helps you

learn better”. Also, teacher comments reflect this same idea, "... I feel it engages

students and allows individual students to work at their own levels” and “because

everyone can learn at their own pace”. Students also enjoy not having to wait to use the

technology for math and writing. Teachers in one-to-one classrooms that offered

feedback pointed out that it was easier to allow students who were ready for higher

order thinking to achieve deeper learning; this is supported by comments from students

that include, “yes, because we can get more info, for research and more questions that

we might have” and “I do feel like I’m learning a lot because my friends can help me I

am stuck on an idea”. Another comment from teachers was that students who are not

self-motivated have a much harder time with self-discipline and staying on task with the

technology.

Engagement is far more difficult to measure. Students are isolated to their

own equipment, so the uses of individual reports from apps and online programs are

essential. Formative and summative assessments can conclude if students are

engaged in personal learning. Student comments said an overwhelming number of one-


to-one students felt they were more engaged and learning more than their peers who

were not in a one-to-one classroom. Student comments reveal feeling this way because

of the ease of access; “... because you don’t have to share it makes it easier”, "...

because your brain doesn’t get mixed up with all the other subjects”, and "... I think

having computers for are use is a great learning opritunity”. An additional study would

be to collect data on homogeneous level learners on the metacognition of their learning.

Negative Effects of Technology and the Adolescent Brain

It is impossible to ask a question that relates to education without taking into

consideration the development of the adolescent brain. A Davis School District

sponsored a presentation by Dr. Christy Kane (2015), Dr. Kane shared her experience

as a counselor and life coach focusing on mental health. She pointed out that research

has shown the evolution of the brain has not changed in many years; the human brain

still processes information the same, regardless of the method it is acquired, technology

has not changed how our brains work.

According to Dr. Kane (2015), the human brain processes feelings though the

sixteen billion neurons in the cortex that aids in communicating feelings. In turn, what

the eyes see, the brain believes. When the brain is engaged through technology, the

limbic system takes over, and the cerebral cortex is unable to process normal emotion.

The constant interactive play and stimulation of the brain through electronic learning

gives the brain a shot of dopamine and a satisfaction feeling. Dopamine is a reward

molecule, pleasure producing rush that wears off. Therefore with more interaction there

is a high, low, high, low effect that takes place and the normal balance of the brain

chemistry is not able to achieve balance. Dopamine is connected to the addiction


causing effects from cocaine and methamphetamines. The balancing endorphin,

oxytocin, is released only through human contact. Oxytocin is necessary to remove the

cortisol in the blood; cortisol known as the fight or flight chemical. The only way for

oxytocin to be released is human contact. The more humans become introverted from

the use of technology the more they become self-absorbed and less oxytocin will be

received.

In adolescents, when the limbic system is overstimulated (a side effect of

frequent technology use) it creates the ups and downs of dopamine, and when there is

little to no introduction of oxytocin, cortisol builds up. Young people, who have very little

experience with dealing with how to handle negative feelings, can develop depression

and uncontrollable thoughts. These students, unless identified and helped, become at

risk for failure and self-harm. When asked her opinion of technology in the classroom,

Dr. Kane’s response was that technology creates a passive environment requiring a

minimal amount of movement and human interaction, which impacts the creation of

chemicals the brain needs for healthy growth, development, and self-esteem in children

and young adults.

Beyond the chemicals and feelings that are effected by the use of technology,

the brain has a process called memory consolidation. The memory consolidation

involves converting information from short-term memory to long-term memory. Short-

term memory stores information for about twenty to thirty seconds, then the information

is moved to the synaptic level to be stored throughout the brain as long-term memory.

The information needs to be accessed again to retrieve the information and create a

neural map. The more that information is retrieved, the stronger the pathway to the


learned material is. In a professional development class provided by Davis School

District, Suzanne Cottrell (district professional development coordinator) reviewed the

importance of allowing time for students to change activities, physically move their

bodies, and come back to the information reviewed to avoid disengagement and

improve effectiveness. Students need to be moving for approximately three minutes and

how often depends on the age of the learner; for young students every fifteen to twenty

minutes, for adults every fifty to ninety minutes.

Authors Thesis

An article was written by Benjamin Waldman, a high school junior in West

Hartford, Connecticut, most resonated with the authors’ connection to technology in the

classroom. Technology is not the Answer: A Student’s Perspective (Waldman, 2014)

shared long-term information that could be found in a longer, more detailed research

paper. The paper reviewed how some schools have started kindergarten student’s

learning guided with iPads. These initiatives do make schools appear more progressive

and advanced; however, elementary school is when students are learning interpersonal

skills, how to build relationships, learning how to self-motivate, and receiving supportive

interaction with the classroom teacher and peers. Waldman points out that a branch of

schools in Silicon Valley has a technology prohibition on students through the seventh

grade. According to a New York Times article, "The Waldorf School in Silicon Valley",

the school that eBay’s chief officers' children attend, along with some Google, Apple,

Yahoo, and Hewlett-Packard employee’s children, have no technology in the

classrooms and believe pencil and paper is the greatest tool to teach the young. The


school and parents believe that “computers inhibit creative thinking, movement, human

interaction and attention spans” (Richtel, 2011).

It is the belief of this author that technology integration should be done according

to the cognitive development of a child’s brain and readiness. Piaget’s theory of

cognitive development (Piaget, 1957) explains that a concrete operational child between

the ages of seven and eleven years old should be capable of thinking logically about

concrete events and grasping concrete analogies. With the Psychosocial Stages of

Development theory from Erikson (1968), states that in stage four; industry versus

inferiority, children develop a sense of pride in accomplishments and abilities through

social interactions, encouragement from parents and teachers is necessary for success,

and failure results in doubting one’s abilities for success. The education system should

be scaffolding the introduction of technology to the appropriate age of students. It does

not matter if a six-year-old can create a Word document; they do not need to. The focus

of young people needs to be on playing, interaction, and personal connections with

peers and trusted adults. Children need the opportunity to develop personalities, to find

if they are introverted or extroverted, to understand what a community is before they are

expected to learn how to forge relationships with people online. Technology needs to be

limited while children develop self-awareness, self-soothing techniques, and self-

governing behaviors. Personal human contact needs to be a priority and students

technology access should be age appropriate. It is the opinion of the author that the

introduction of technology in elementary should be limited and interpersonal. Social

skills while learning standards from a teacher should be the focus. During middle school

technology skills should be introduced and used in group learning for projects and


flipped classroom learning. High school should continue the improvement of abilities

and to hone in the job market skills.

Before college, it is imperative that all learners have access to technology as it

can prepare students for future careers. After students have reached appropriate

cognition, technology can help focus on different learning styles and

differentiation. When used correctly integrated technology can keep students engaged

and can allow the teacher to be an adviser and coach. Professional development for

teachers is the obvious answer of how to enable teachers to become those coaches

and use the technology effectively for ready learners. Differentiation should also be

considered for students who do not learn well through technology driven instruction at

the appropriate development stage.

Most summative testing, down to first-grade, is now online. A successful

elementary school teacher has a great deal to plan for, to balance, and to try to control.

By understanding what students are capable of, how students are willing and capable of

independent learning, how to keep the novelty of programs and learning processes

fresh to reduce disengagement, and how to keep children learning personal skills,

teachers must effectively use technology. However, teachers need to understand the

development of the brain, the stages of development, and cognition. These

understandings should show students need time to process new information, they need

brain breaks according to their age level; students need to interact and be involved in

peer projects. Learning together is a human skill and elementary students need to

master this skill, before they are offered the seclusion of the internet community.


Conclusion

Education is an ever changing environment. Students appear to like whatever

learning environment they are in. Wanting to provide students with the best available

tools, materials, teachers, lessons, and technology is a natural evolution. Knowing that

the students taught today are the future is a huge weight; parents, teachers, even the

government tries to focus on what will be in the best interest of the future. Providing

students with tools and technology beyond their abilities and forming the appropriate

foundation of basic human skills will impact the future in a negative way. It is not

intentional, every school wants to show they are doing what is best for the community,

but sometimes the progressive image and appeal of having superior learning tools is not

always what is best for a young learner.


References

Bluff Ridge Elementary, 2015. Bluff Ridge Elementary composite school plan 2014-

2015. Retrieved from

http://www.davis.k12.ut.us/cms/lib09/UT01001306/Centricity/Domain/3975/SIP

%202015.pdf

Bluff Ridge Elementary, 2015. Bluff Ridge Elementary composite school plan 2015-

2015. Retrieved from

http://www.davis.k12.ut.us/cms/lib09/UT01001306/Centricity/domain/65/2015-

2016%20sip/1-el%20plans/Bluff%20Ridge%20EL.pdf

Davis School District, 2015. Fingertip facts and figures. Retrieved from

http://www.davis.k12.ut.us/cms/lib09/UT01001306/Centricity/Domain/3/About

%20Us.pdf

Davis School District, 2015. Annual Budget Report. Retrieved from

http://www.davis.k12.ut.us/cms/lib09/UT01001306/Centricity/Domain/

4/2016Budget.pdf

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Kane, C. (2015). Shell cracking, leaving the past behind. Mustang, OK., Tate

Publishing.

Piaget, J. (1957). Construction of reality in the child. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Richtel, M. (2011) A Silicon Valley school that doesn’t compute. New York, New York.

New York Times, Oct. 22, 2011.

United States Census Bureau (2015) People Quick Facts. Retrieved from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/49/4974810.html.


Utah State Legislature, 2015. Public Education Increased Funding Program. Retrieved

from http://le.utah.gov/~2015/bills/static/HB0054.html.

Waldman, B. (2014) Technology is not the answer: a student’s perspective. Retrieved

from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/10/15/08waldman.h34.html

Documents

Technology in the Elementary Classroom