User:Miaschaubhut/Technology integration

Counter argument to computers in the classroom
There is unsettled debate concerning the efficacy of computers in the classroom when it comes to learning and student performance. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report "Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection" highlights that while access to computers at home is widespread, the use of computers in schools varies. Specifically, “In 2012, 96% of 15-year-old students in OECD countries reported that they have a computer at home, but only 72% reported that they use a desktop, laptop or tablet computer at school. Only 42% of students in Korea and 38% of students in Shanghai-China reported that they use computers at school - and Korea and Shanghai-China were among the top performers in the digital reading and computer-based mathematics tests in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2012." Countries like Korea and Shanghai-China, where computer use in schools is less common, have achieved high performance in digital reading and computer-based mathematics tests. On the other hand, countries with more prevalent internet use for schoolwork have experienced a decline in reading performance over time, observed by PISA scores.

Schools across the United States have committed to adopting technology in the classroom, but education research and policy are inconclusive on whether technology helps or hinders student performance and creativity. The push to involve students with a screen was exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, when remote and hybrid learning models were instituted. Integrating computers in the classroom was viewed as challenging by many educators and researchers due to the complex relationship between creativity and technology. In "Creativity and technology in teaching and learning," Danah Henriksen et al. emphasizes the lack of common ground and research integration in understanding how creativity and technology intersect in educational practice. The disconnect between research and classroom realities, conflicting stakeholder demands, and varying definitions of creativity heavily contribute to the controversies technology has brought to learning. The article suggests involving practitioners in research, bridging the gap between theory and practice, and engaging in action research to address the complexities of implementing creativity and technology in classrooms. Thus, the relationship between technology and learning lacks consensus and shared understanding both within and between disciplines and research.

Literature reflects parents' wishes for a low-tech learning environment. Diane Ravitch's book "Reign of Error" argues for a balanced curriculum that includes various subjects such as sciences, literature, history, and the arts. It emphasizes the importance of physical education, well-equipped libraries, and support services in schools. Ravitch also mentions the Waldorf School of the Peninsula in Los Altos, California, which prohibits the use of computers and emphasizes physical activity and creative, hands-on projects. The school attracts tech industry executives who value a well-rounded education for their children. This is just one example of parents choosing low-tech alternative schooling for their children.

Lastly, critics argue that excessive reliance on computers may diminish human interaction and interpersonal skills. Traditional classroom environments foster face-to-face interaction, collaboration, and the development of social skills, which are essential for students' personal and professional growth. Despite the extensive research on interaction in online learning, educators often struggle to recreate the same level of engagement as face-to-face classes. Interpersonal interaction, a crucial but complex aspect of online learning, remains a challenge. The study "Purposeful Interpersonal Interaction in Online Learning: What is it and How is it Measured?" by Scott Mehall at Bloomsburg University aims to provide a new perspective on interpersonal interaction in online learning called purposeful interpersonal interaction (PII). By examining various types of interpersonal interaction highlighted in existing literature, they found that we can identify those that lead to improved student outcomes. PII encompasses three key interaction types: purposeful interpersonal instructional interaction, purposeful social interaction, and supportive interaction. These interactions have been linked to important student outcomes, such as perceived learning, satisfaction, and academic achievement. In conclusion, overemphasis on computer-based learning could potentially lead to a decrease in these valuable social interactions.""