Learning Aloud

Larry Cuban has been writing a series of blog posts focused on technology integration. The second post in this series is an attempt to define what technology integration means. There is often confusion in education when terms have both a common, general meaning and also a specific, more academic meaning. Things get messy when a word or phrase is used in both ways.

Here is why I am commenting on this topic. My wife and I wrote a textbook, copyright 1996, titled “Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning”. If you understand how the copyright date for textbooks works, you realize that a 1996 copyright really means that the book is available to students for the Fall 1995 semester. This dating strategy is used to assure a book appears as recent as is possible. The first edition of a textbook takes longer than subsequent editions because more work is involved and because the companies backing the book do more with reviewers to assure the book will sell. So, we were using the phrase technology integration in 1994 or so.

We believe our book was one of the first and probably the first to describe the focus of the book as technology integration. We know what we meant by the phrase at that time and I don’t think I would regard our meaning as a technical term. Our concept was based in the book “Mindtools” authored by the late David Jonassen. I regarded Mindtools as more focused on college academics rather than teachers and I thought the tools Jonassen promoted could be expanded. We were particularly interested in Hypercard and applications such as Kid Pics as additions to Jonassen’s focus on traditional productivity tools – word processing, databases, spreadsheets. Jonassen and a colleague did eventually write a book more applying these ideas for future teaches. The idea of mindtools and our original use of  technology integration was that the types of tools already available could be used within content area instruction to allow generative exploration of the topics addressed in these content areas. Writing to learn was a perspective that was generalized in my own thinking. I now prefer authoring to learn, but writing to learn had greater general familiarity. This integration of such tools in content areas could be contrasted with approaches such as computer-based instruction, computer literacy or programming (although the early LOGO experiences also encouraged the use of LOGO to explore other content areas).

Our focus in the published book was expanded to include a greater breadth of topics (we did include chapters on computer based instruction and programming), but the application of a variety of technology-based tools across the curriculum was and remains a focus of our writing.

So, our meaning of technology integration was the use of technology across the curriculum. It was not intended to be a formal term, but rather a recognition that technology can be applied in flexibly ways to benefit the learning process. My only motivation in offering my perspective is protecting our general use of this term and challenging those who might suggest we are using the phrase in an inappropriate manner.

Our present edition is available as a Kindle book. Our transition from a traditional, big company textbook to our present publishing approach (a Primer in combination with web resources) is a story for another day.

A recent book entitled “Glow time” has ignited renewed attention to the screen time debate. My interest in educational applications of technology is not normally threatened by this debate because the number of hours of screen time invested by young people is not strongly weighted toward education use. However, Dr. Kadramas’ book goes further to attack the use of technology in classrooms as potentially responsible for the rise in ADHD and supported by the greed of those selling digital products.

As one might expect when advocates are threatened, claims meet with opposition questioning the interpretation of the data and the motives of those opposing the general use of technology. The critical thinking techniques we try to teach kids would lead readers to understand writers are potentially biased.

A couple of comments about the screen time controversy based on my personal reading.

1. The double digit per day screen time totals reported in some studies may seem alarming to many parents. How screen time is defined in at least some of these studies may explain some of the data. Some studies add together estimates from the use of multiple screens. So, for example, on a Sunday I might watch CBS Sunday Morning, Face the Nation, up to three football games and 60 minutes. This might be rare, but I am saying it has happened. In addition, I likely have my iPad on my lap while watching television. I could be credited with 20 hours of screen time for one day.

2. Causality for variables that involve a great amount of time can be very difficult to interpret. So, for the best quality research, one would assign subjects to conditions (low and high screen time) at random and then apply this treatment condition over several years to determine how such differences in exposure might influence dependent variables. This type of research would be impractical. Researchers then have to rely on the assessment of variables as they exist – reports of screen time and physical characterics (ADHD, weight, etc.). This is practical, but leads to interpretive problems. Does greater screen time increase the obesity rate or do those kids who are over weight find themselves less successful at physical activity (e.g., sports) and gravitate toward watching as a result? This type of situation is associated with many controversial issues – e.g., aggression and video games. However, the existance of alternative interpretations also may not mean that the explanation the researcher wants to push is wrong.

I understand that my comments do little to resolve this controversy. As I suggest, my personal focus educational technology is not threatened by the screen time issue.

We purchase and manage iPads for our grandkids. I suppose some may assume we are contributing to the delinquency of minors. Kids do seem drawn to tablets and do watch the strangest things. I don’t get the thing about watching someone who is good at games play games or watching an older child explain her doll collection. There are interesting individual differences here. One kid finds the videos of video games uninteresting, but watches the replays from the Olympic soccer games. Neither would find much time on my playlist.

It has been interesting for us to evaluate their requests for new apps and new services. It has also been interesting to observe how the different sets of parents impose their own values on when, how, and how much their children use these devices.

We do recognize that children need guidance in how they use technology (or watch television). I do not agree with the best of the worst options logic (iPad or television). Somehow this reminds me of how some see the present presidential race. Technology is such an adaptable tool it can be shaped into so many forms and supporting a variety of experiences is probably a good rule of thumb. Exploring options is generally a good thing for young learners. Consider, for example, the debate concern when young athletes begin to focus on a single sport.

I typically don’t promote Psychology Today as a great scholarly source, but I do think a recent article on “Screenagers” provided a useful analysis of some of the issues associated with how young people make decisions about their use of technology.