Technology in Early Education

The Effects of Technology on Learning Curves in Early Education Eliana Mijangos Texas A&M University

TECHNOLOGY IN EARLY EDUCATION 2 Technological innovations are not what they used to be, telephones, cars and jet air travel. Although these innovations had a great impact on the development of the baby boomers, new technology like computers, Internet and genetic engineering are pushing future generations to a new level of evolution. Educating our future generations to use technology in its fullest capacities and understanding its dangers will be key to Americas economic, social and developmental success. Educating our children about technology can start with using technology to educate. Aspects of technological innovation in schools include computers or educational technology, diffusion of innovation, as well as the schools ecology and teacher qualifications (Kumar, Altschuld). In many cases, the effort has been made to provide the technology and the funding has been spent, but the integration of the various computers and programs has not been thoroughly integrated into the classroom (Zhao, Frank). The present paper will discuss various evaluations of teacher preparation as well as tested approaches to integrating technology (robotics) with basic principals learned in early education (Kumar, Altschuld). It is hypothesized that the increased use of technology in the classroom environment will increase learning curves and if tested further along in an academic career, would show an increased preparedness for secondary education and job opportunities. The following five articles will attempt to support and build upon the hypothesis.

Key words: technology, teaching provisions and qualifications, school ecology, integrating variables

TECHNOLOGY IN EARLY EDUCATION 3 In a research article by Zhao and Frank (2003), the factors that affect technology use in classrooms are discussed. The authors argue that teachers expertise and attitude towards technology is the basis for a students willingness to use or learn technology. The conflict in this concept comes from the number of values regarding technology that are portrayed to teachers (Cuban). For one, with conflicting views on the role of technology in schools, teachers are not fully motivated to promote its use. Also, because technology is considered ever evolving, a teachers qualifications for its use would have to follow and keeping up with the latest trends in technology seems far-fetched for some teachers. Whether or not that is an incursion in their qualifications as a teacher is for the reader to judge. Third, the flawed aspects of our most current technology make for a reluctant use of a tool that has the potential to break down at any point (Zhao, Frank). Although these reasons seem valid, the attitude of the teachers suggests a fear of the new or unknown that will not sit well in a students future. The reality is, technology will be an enormous part of our future generations lives both personally and professionally.

Preparing them not only for the use of technology, but with the knowledge to decipher dependable sources in a world wide web needs to be an essential part of the educational curriculum. Allowing our future to accept anything they read online could be detrimental to our economic, social and developmental success. Zhao and Frank use the introduction of Zebra mussels in the Great Lakes as a simile for computers being introduced to society. Both are foreign phenomena that sparked an evolutionary movement for generations in the future (Zhao, Frank). In other words, our nature as organisms has shown a pattern of fear for the unknown or, in this case, fear of technology. To

TECHNOLOGY IN EARLY EDUCATION 4 understand them requires a comprehensive and systematic approach that takes into consideration the nature of the species, the environment, other facilitative forces and the interactions among these components, (Zhao, Frank 808). The fact that schools are a very social environment can actually threaten the very idea of technological emergence and integration (Zhao, Frank). Zhao and Frank conclude that schools shy away from this integration because it pressures the norm or the current practices that students are used to. For students, this can lead to a similar approach in the work force when they are faced with new issues or approaches, their reaction will be to suppress what could be a better, more innovative solution because it strays from their norm. As discussed previously, this fear of the unknown can be avoided if the teachers attitude towards and expertise in technology remains positive despite the conflicting views (Zhao, Frank).

Similarly, Kumar and Altschuld (2002) argue that technology can supplement both the learning process and the testing outcomes of lower level science education. These authors take it a step further than Zhao and Frank in stating that not only has technology become more readily available while funding for technology in the classroom has increased, but technology has been created specifically for the classroom and as a tool for teacher training. Kumars hypothesis tested and showed the increased innovation of technology starting in 1989. During this time period, Interactive Video Technology (IVD), which came in the form or student or teacher aids, saw an increase of 560+, this being in only one form of technology (Kumar, Altschuld). Of the 29% of Ohio science teachers who were exposed to IVD through pre-service training, 92% chose to use this technology as a learning tool for their students (Kumar, Altschuld). In a separate study noted by Kumar

TECHNOLOGY IN EARLY EDUCATION 5 and Altschuld (Goldman, Barron 1990), training through IVD technology caused an increase in teachers confidence and enthusiasm in the classroom. Relating back to Zhao and Frank, this enthusiasm from the teacher is what sparks the interest of students or entices them to try this new style of learning.

Kumar and Altschulds study focused more on the evolution and in some cases, arguments for improved science curriculums and how technology can have a positive effect on teacher preparedness in these efforts (Kumar, Altschuld). At the same time, a complete reliance upon technology is not being suggested within the components of this paper. In a more recent article by Margaret Reid (2006), the author discussed the most recent debates on hierarchical measures of core, most necessary and relevant courses that will apply to future education and job successes. Science and Math curriculums have both been argued more recently in education politics to be more important than History (Reid). Although in a literal sense Science and Math are arguably related to job qualifications and technological efforts, the general knowledge and understanding that comes with History will be essential, more so for future generations than ever before (Reid). In an age of instant gratification where Google is the answer to our everyday issues, where does the filter of good and bad information come into play? The knowledge of History or general concepts will keep us from making mistakes as a nation due to sheer ignorance. In broader terms, when using technology as the sole tool for learning, your teacher becomes any hand that can type or has access to a computer. Reid relates the above statement as the difference in national prerogatives. Colloquial knowledge is not something that will bring you to a level of elitism or establish a status but rather is

TECHNOLOGY IN EARLY EDUCATION 6 knowledge that should come as convenient (Reid). If it is not a subject that will lead to a climb in status, the relevance of it is based on its feasibility (Reid). By sticking to this traditional model of depicting the necessity of a subject, we ignore technologys progress and the direct impact it has on our current and future generations.

Suggested Testing and Methodology Within the previously mention studies (Cuban) (Kumar, Altschuld) (Ried) (Zhao, Frank), a variety of both qualitative and quantitative methods were used. To test the present hypothesis, the methodology of Zhao and Frank would most closely be followed although some distinct changes will be made. Zhao and Frank used a sample based on the social set up of school districts. They chose four school districts in a Midwestern state and tested the use of technology, availability of technology and which technological innovations were most readily available. Because they were focused on the ecological perspectives of technology use in classrooms, schools with tightly defined social systems were the only ones chosen and made for a biased result (Zhao, Frank). The samples access to technology was larger than the national average, (Zhao, Frank 818). This result was due in part by the fact that the sample had a small number of free or assisted lunch qualifiers in comparison to the national average. This suggested the socioeconomic backgrounds in the sample were above the average American student (Zhao, Frank). Although Zhao and Franks test showed a significant aspect of technology use in classrooms, the lack of a balanced sample creates a loss of credibility for their results.

TECHNOLOGY IN EARLY EDUCATION 7 Testing the current hypothesis, an increased use of technology in the elementary education will increase learning curves and if tested further along in an academic career, would show an increased preparedness for secondary education and job opportunities, the necessity for both qualitative and quantitative research is necessary. The learning curve aspect for children will be simple to test with a comparison in average scores of Science, Math and History on a quarterly basis (Reid). The first four months would be a test of text books while the second would begin with one month of online pre-service training for teachers that presents the possible and appropriate uses for Internet, video and social media, essentially boosting the confidence of teachers. Both before and after implementing technology in their classrooms, teachers will complete a qualitative survey and interview explaining their uncertainties about technology, their own personal use of technology and how the students reacted to or, in the case of the first interview, what type of reaction the teacher predicts from the students. The students averages for the same set of subjects will be tested in the second quarter based on a curriculum of both technology and text-books. This same test would be conducted throughout grades 3-7, two schools per state (one private, one public) so that a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds are considered. This would confirm the basis of the hypothesis; an increased use of technology in elementary education will increase learning curves. As for the more farfetched aspect of the hypothesis, both qualitative and quantitative research will be taken from government officials, lawyers and doctors understanding their use of technology in their current positions (qualitative survey) as well as a description of their education and whether or not technology played a role in them choosing and pursuing their current careers. This methodology will accurately test the proposal that technology

TECHNOLOGY IN EARLY EDUCATION 8 in early education will lead to job success. Success in this case will be measured by the three original and current elite positions; military, law, health (Mills).

Opposite Points of View In a study by Hlas and Vuksanovich (2007) regarding Spanish elementary school foreign language classrooms (FLES), the use of CD-ROMS in the class room showed a negative correlation in learning curves despite the mass amount of technological tools created to aid teachers in this field. In this case, the influx of technology use in FLES was due to a lack of textbooks, an issue not often found in public middle and high schools (Hlas, Vuksanovich). Over 15 years ago, one of the fastest rising computer technologies for language learning was CD-ROMS, (Hlas, Vuksanovich 769). This research found that many teachers preferred not to use CDs because they hindered students conversational abilities and lacked authenticity of culture (Hlas, Vuksanovich). Although this form of technology did not work for FLES environments, the study relates back to Zhao and Franks statement about the evaluation of where and how technology is used1. Although the qualitative methods of review for this study were sufficient, comparing the use of technology in one environment to sum up the use of technology in all classroom environments doesnt suffice as an equal measure. Also, as stated previously, a complete reliance on technology, as created by a lack of textbooks, is not being hypothesized within this paper, but rather a combination of both textual and technological curriculum. Language learning is about more than the basic grammar, but about the culture and appreciation of a foreign people (Hlas, Vuksanovich). Using a basic CD may not meet the
1 To

understand them requires a comprehensive and systematic approach that takes into consideration the nature of the species, the environment, other facilitative forces and the interactions among these components, (Zhao, Frank 808).

TECHNOLOGY IN EARLY EDUCATION 9 required levels of learning in this case. However, in the case of Science or Math, using technology will be key to obtaining a future job or understanding the relevance of topics in a culture more close to home.

Conlcusion The use of technology in the elementary education will be the key to Americas success economically, socially and developmentally. Whether generations want to realize the tremendous affects applications like the Internet, social media and even the most cutting edge innovations like genetic engineering, they are very much alive and cannot be ignored. Shaving ourselves of the fear of this unknown factor entering our environment can start with enthusiastic teachers who are confident in their knowledge of technology (Kumar, Altschuld). We cannot depend solely on this tool to gain knowledge because the balance of common sense and intelligence must be met. Rather than promoting only subjects that allow us to climb the latter of elite, we must remember that the hand behind the computer is not the teacher, but rather a source for knowledge to be gained (Reid). Although the approach of technology in the classroom may not work for all types of class room environments, (Hlas, Vuksanovich), the evaluation of when and where it is necessary must be made based on the ecological environment within the school (Zhao, Frank). All in all, an increased use of technology in the appropriate classroom environment will increase learning curves and if tested further along in an academic career, would show an increased preparedness for secondary education and job opportunities.

TECHNOLOGY IN EARLY EDUCATION 1

Bibliography Cuban, L., (1999, August 4). The Technology Puzzle: Why is greater access not translating into better classroom use? Education Week, pp. 47, 68. Hlas, A., Vuksanovich, M., (Dec., 2007), Computer Assisted Language Learning in Spanish Elementary School Foreign Language Classrooms: The roll of CD-ROMS. Hispana, Vol. 90, pp. 769-783. Kumar, D., Altschuld, J.,(June, 2002) Complementary Approaches to Evaluation of Technology in Science Education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 11, pp. 179-191. Mills, Wright, Problems in American Civilization: The Power Elite in America, D.C. Heath and Company, pp. 2-7. Reid, M.I., (July 2006), Common Core Curriculum: Reflections on the Current Debate, Web of Science. Volume 21, pp. 97-102 Zhao, Y., Frank, K. (Winter, 2003), Factors Affecting Technology Use in Schools: An Ecological Perspective. American Educational Research Journal , Vol. 40, pp. 807-840