While there are myriad harms associated with allowing students to access their personal digital devices in the classroom, the use of digital learning technology in the classroom might be a different matter entirely. A new paper by researcher Dr. Meredith Coffey argues for three tenets that should guide schools as they structure their digital landscape.
Nearly all students have a school-issued device at their disposal, which is used to complete assignments, research papers, and access learning organizational platforms like Canvas or Google Classroom. Coffey notes that the devices intrinsically shape today’s school systems, saying “Today, as many as 99 percent of teachers work at schools that provide laptops or tablets to K–12 students, who then spend a daily average of 98 minutes on screens at school, navigating a jaw-dropping average of 48 unique digital tools annually.”
Learning technology is a relatively new field. It expanded dramatically through the late 2000s and became an unavoidable aspect of pedagogical practice during COVID-19 and the resulting digital shift during lockdowns. However, despite its prolific use, it remains an unstructured tool. A majority of new and veteran teachers have reported that they have received little to no training on how to successfully use classroom technology, that teacher input is rarely considered in the purchases of classroom technology, and that they feel that classroom time is often wasted through technology.
The use of digital technology in the classroom isn’t neutral. Especially when technology is under-structured and over-used, the results of this use can be harmful for students. Coffey writes:
At best, the evidence on learning tech’s academic benefits is minimal. The few rigorous, post-pandemic studies on tech in U.S. K–12 classrooms have found that any positive outcomes are mostly tied to specific programs, such as a “curriculum-driven” math practice tool that boosted 3rd graders’ math skills. Otherwise, studies show that increased device usage correlates with worse reading performance among 4th and 8th graders and a widening of longstanding achievement gaps among K–3 students. Looking at international data, psychologist Jean Twenge has identified a relationship between school device usage and lower academic achievement.
Classroom technology won’t disappear anytime soon, regardless of the academic research noting that the disappearance might be ambivalent or beneficial. It begs the question: How can we take the use of technology from a heedless push for modernization to a thoughtful pedagogical practice that delivers clear academic results?
Coffey offers three major changes for educators to implement within the classroom that emphasize planning, purpose, and structure.
First, she argues for structured digital training for our students, writing that we must
abandon the delusion that kids are tech-savvy just because they were born recently. All students need developmentally appropriate, explicit, and dedicated digital literacy instruction. According to recent federal data, only 61 percent of schools provide students with digital literacy training via “formal or structured digital literacy curriculum.” Six out of 10 schools is far too few, when just about 10 out of 10 schools are putting devices in children’s hands.
Such instruction could include explicit online research instruction and practical teaching on how the physical computer device and the cloud functions. Building on Coffey’s argument, perhaps younger grades could participate in a “writing skills” course, which would give both typing instruction and cursive handwriting instruction.
Second, Coffey warns that a structured administrative response to AI is necessary, saying “Recent federal data reveal that only 14 percent of public school leaders say that all their students “are taught about ethical/appropriate uses of AI.” Heads, it’s time to exit the sand.” AI will almost certainly be a fixture of the modern classroom for years to come, meaning that students must be given explicit instruction as to when and how they may use AI in their assignments. Whole-school alignment is essential to ensure that students clearly understand what uses of AI are considered cheating and which are licit uses.
When I was teaching, my school used a “tier system” of AI to explain to students whenever a subject was assigned whether they may use AI at all, during their research, or on their submitted work. I felt that the system worked well, and I was happy to hear Coffey praise a similar rubric.
Finally, Coffey insists that educators must “pursue solutions, not shiny objects.” Administrators, she says, should not purchase technology for the purpose of technology, but should seek to fill a need; quality uses might be a student who needs text-to-voice technology, a science classroom annotating photos on an Ipad, or teacher-requested curriculum updates with digital components.
Administrators also shouldn’t be afraid to limit technological programs that have fulfilled their use. Do all students truly need a personal IPad, or is a limited access class cart the better choice? By thinking frugally, they can save their district potential millions in technology costs and limit distractions for their teachers.
Coffey’s piece is worth a close read, but her most salient point is the simplest one: If our classroom’s digital world can become closely structured, our learners and educators will be better off.
