Critical Thinking Analysis - The Technology Penalty

For my current graduate course, we were each asked to analyze two journal articles. I have written the following based on that assignment.

Module 3 – Critical Thinking

The relationship between the two articles assigned to our group is an interesting one. In “Handheld, Wireless Computers: Can They Improve Learning and Instruction?”, Moallem, Kermani, and Chen report their attempt to develop an instructional model for the use of handheld computers in a university classroom. The second article, “TECHNOLOGY: The Technology Penalty”, Royal Van Horn lists several instances when educators “do something using technology that you could do easier, quicker, or more efficiently without using technology”. While I appreciate the thoughtful and earnest research approach used by the first group, I find their optimistic conclusions slightly odd since several parts of their report support the technology penalty as described by Van Horn. Though I do not agree wholeheartedly with either article, the juxtaposition of the views makes for an interesting discussion.

As Moallem, et al, designed their study, they made a concerted effort to begin with a solid research based list of principles for good instruction. They reiterate throughout the report the necessity of good instruction before applying technology to the classroom. My recent experience (the last few years) observing in a multitude of classrooms proves this point again and again. We must fix the instruction first. The same philosophy was voiced in a web cast presentation by Stephanie Sandifer from the NECC conference. As a technology guru in her school, Stephanie emphasized beginning with good instructional design and then using technology to fill a gap or solve a problem to further that design. Even though I was introduced to a great variety of instructional strategies during my teacher training eleven years ago, I am just now seeing the beginnings of thoughtful attention to designing instruction in local classrooms. There finally seems to be an interest and even an urgency to implement a new kind of lesson planning and focus on some high-order thinking skills. Whether this is because of a stronger research base that defines authentic learning or because there is now federal accountability for failing schools, it’s about time.

While I completely agree with the authors’ diligence in providing researched-based principles for good instruction, I also struggle with the next section of the study which begins: “HWCs (handheld wireless computers) can facilitate immediate assessment of and access to student prior knowledge, motivation and learning, and cognitive styles through online and ongoing self-assessment tools.” (p.96) And then goes on to assert that HWC’s can facilitate all the other listed principles as well. I understand that these assertions are correct however they are also correct for a regular notebook or PC. There is no information to differentiate the advantages of the HWC over a notebook or PC. I suppose you could make the argument that it is more portable but the HWC also comes with a new learning curve and training time for teachers and students. HWC’s also have an additional cost consideration. The university instructors involved in the study also raised the issue of the time required for designing the unit. So with the idea of Van Horn’s technology penalty in mind, I am beginning to question whether this HWC project was worth all the time and effort.

As I continued to read the results and conclusions concerning the hand held computers, I became increasingly dissatisfied with the content of the article. When the participating students mentioned that they felt the HWCs “increased their motivation by making the unit of instruction more interesting” (p.101), this throws up a red flag to me that should be further explored. Was the instruction more interesting because of the new technology “toy”? Or was the instruction more interesting because it was designed to be more interesting than previous class sessions? Any new (and interesting) technology could soon become uninteresting once the newness wears off. And this then becomes an example of teachers entertaining students rather than facilitating a situation in which the students are motivated and responsible for their own learning. It’s not that I am against a little entertainment, but I have seen students begin to expect it on a regular basis. This can then lead to a passive learner who is completely dependent on the teacher for motivation.

Another interesting aspect to the HWC project, was using the handhelds during instruction to facilitate rapid student response and then adjust the instruction accordingly based on the response results. The implementation of the project states that: “The instructors developed key questions related to the concepts covered in their lecture/demonstration or large group discussions.” (p. 98) I agree that this function is highly dependant on the quality of the questions used but I think it is also dependant on the sincerity of the student responses. In a high school classroom for example, it would not be long before some students would try to manipulate the flow of instruction through their answers to the questions especially if it is an anonymous response. I do not know if this would also be true at the college level as I am not as familiar with undergraduate students. The rapid student response may make more sense in a math classroom to assess computation and problem solving for the whole group.

Another tie in to Van Horn’s technology penalty has to do with his argument that “innovations and good ideas often fail because of the ‘stuff’ requirement. All too often people want teachers to do things that require stuff they either do not have or do not have the time to find, assemble, or make. Laboratory science is a good example of an educational innovation that has an immense stuff requirement.”
His technology example of this goes as follows: “Using technology in the classroom can also have a stuff requirement that ups the technology penalty. For example, consider a mobile laptop computer lab cart. Rolling the cart into a classroom, distributing 30 computers, and attaching a mouse to each one takes time. Returning the laptops to the cart and plugging them all into charging stations takes still more time. For this reason, I am not a fan of these kinds of mobile computer labs.”
Based on this example the use of HWC’s would have a similar penalty. I have been in classes where mobile laptop carts were used very effectively due to the sound instructional design of the lesson. The number of students in the class and the amount of time available for such activities was also a factor. It takes much less time to distribute laptops for ten students than it would for thirty students. It could also be argued that for some classrooms, access to a laptop cart or HWC’s is preferable to no computer access at all.

As Moallem, Kermani, and Chen begin their evaluation of the project, the first discussion point in the evaluation section of the study remarks that:
“Instructors’ and researchers’ reflection and observational notes indicated
that in all three courses, using HWCs for delivering instruction changed
the class dynamics from a primarily lecture-driven, large group discussion
to a more interactive and student-involved learning environment.
Instructors agreed that the applied instructional strategies using HWCs
made them more responsive to students’ understanding of the materials,
helped students become more engaged during instruction, and encouraged
students to participate more actively during discussion and team
activities.” (p.100)
When reading this section it is important to note that it is not necessarily the use of HWC’s that changed the classroom dynamic for the better, but probably the change in instructional strategies compared to a traditional lecture-driven university course. If interest in the new technology of HWC’s was the driving force behind the instructors interest in changing the instructional strategies then we are using a backward model – when new technology drives strategy rather than sound instructional design driving technology application. This seems to be the opposite of what the authors intended at the outset of this project.

To their credit the authors of the HWC study do come back to this later in the report where they conclude:
“In other words, the promise of handheld computers lies in facilitating the improvement of instruction. Both university faculty and school teachers need to be reminded that new and emerging technology tools such as PDAs are only effective if they are used to improve the process of learning and teaching that is established by research.”(p.104)
I also feel the need to comment that using a technology interface for each individual in a group discussion when all participants are physically present in the room seems odd to me. Of course access to information via the web or class materials could be beneficial, but I guess my question refers more to the skills of the instructor in the first place. A skillful instructor can certainly facilitate participation in group discussion and respond to student’s understanding of the material without the use of technology. For all the research and training available, I truly feel that some teachers get it and some teachers don’t get it. My most recent reading has been Powerful Learning – What We Know About Teaching for Understanding by Linda Darling-Hammond, et al. In this book, the research on effective strategies could not be more clear and accessible. The slow adoption of these strategies deprives millions of students of their benefits and our educational system continues to plod along with no clear direction except to avoid the penalties of the No Child Left Behind federal legislation. Although if that is what it takes to get things moving forward, I am all for it.
In the meantime as we try to affect change and navigate our own little corners of the education community, the application of technology to education deserves continued discussion. I appreciate Van Horn’s final comments about the technology penalty:
“Let me state emphatically that I am not discussing the technology penalty because I want to discourage the use of technology. Rather, I am discussing the technology penalty so that readers can take it into account if they are considering integrating technology into the schools at any level. As the old saying goes, ‘Forewarned is forearmed.’"
This quote reminds me of my slogan for this course – If we know better, we should do better. Van Horn is essentially telling his readers to think carefully and gather information about what they are doing and then proceed. That’s what I want for my teaching interns and science students. And that’s what I want for my children – to be thinkers and doers.

Darling-Hammmond, L (2008). Powerful Learning - What We Know About Teaching for Understanding. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Moallem, M., Kermani, H. & Chen, S. (2005).Handheld, Wireless Computers: Can they Improve Learning and Instruction?. Computers in the Schools. 22, 93-106.

Van Horn, R (May 2007).Technology-The Technology Penalty. Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 87, No. 9.