Have you noticed the many recent news reports of school purchases of electronic tools and applications, and how teachers are using technology in their classrooms? Such extensive coverage is not surprising; we need to be next-gen schools and educational technologies do have enormous potential to raise student achievement.

Classrooms, such as those at Califon School in Califon, NJ, look like exciting places for kids to learn. I believe, however, that we should tread cautiously, reflecting on some instructional assumptions we may be making, how we determine school budget priorities, and the influence wealthy individuals and giant corporations potentially have on literacy instruction as we go digital.

Possible assumptions

My first teaching position was in a really small town (population 512). I made some assumptions about my students that over time proved wrong: (1) they could all read, (2) they would be excited about learning, and (3) they all got a good night’s sleep.

It turned out that (1) quite a few were struggling readers, (2) they didn’t like school, and (3) many spent weekday evenings at the local bar with their parents. Initially, my incorrect assumptions guided my teaching; as they unraveled, I had to readjust and reconsider how and what I taught.

I wonder if now we are making faulty assumptions regarding educational technology in classrooms. Perhaps we are assuming as fact that:

1. Students prefer to learn using today’s technology over more traditional delivery formats. According to Hewlett Packard’s 2013 study of college students, students appreciated the ease of use of e-books provided, but “contrary to what most would expect, the younger and supposedly tech-savvy students are not all that into e-textbooks. It runs counter to the push for paper-free digital classroom where e-books are often marketed (and touted) as the lower cost (and lower weight) option.” When we personalize learning, we have to take into account whether the manner in which instruction is delivered appeals to both student interests.


2. Students who have access know how to use it. My neighbor has two middle-schoolers. Her daughter is tethered to technology, regularly uploads on YouTube, creates sophisticated PowerPoints for school projects, writes blogs, and easily researches topics that interest her; my neighbor’s son, however, uses digital tools when necessary for writing school papers, but essentially creates a cut-and-paste product. Clearly, though living in the same access-available household, these two children have achieved different skill levels. Even though today’s students may have grown up with new technologies, they are not all whiz kids at using them, nor do they want to be.


3. Proficient print readers will be good e-readers. Not necessarily. A review of the research (Jabr, April 2013) concludes that comprehension of paper text is superior to text read on screen, attributing this to such factors as ease of navigation and sense of control. Additionally, reading paper text appears to be less mentally and physically taxing because e-texts require scrolling in addition to reading. As engineers work to make reading with new technologies similar to the experience of reading on paper, such differences may disappear.


4. Struggling readers will have higher achievement when teaching is enhanced by educational technology. Not all by itself. In a recent report out of Stanford University, Darling-Hammond, Zielezinski, and Goldman (September 2014) cite three factors affecting outcomes for at-risk adolescent learners using educational technology: (1) interactive learning; (2) use of technology to explore and create rather than to “drill and kill;” and (3) the right blend of teachers and technology.


5. Students can do technology-based assignments at home. We’ve heard repeatedly that today’s students are more tech-savvy than their teachers. After all, they grew up with it and many teachers did not. This assumption ignores the digital divide in classrooms. Some students have had access at home since birth; many have not. Pew’s 2013 study on use of the Internet in the U.S. found 85% of Americans use the Internet but only 70% have broadband connections at home, and low-income households comprise the largest group without home access. In income-diverse classrooms, our students will not be on a level playing field if homework assignments are dependent on or advantaged by access.


6. Educational technology improves teaching. Technology itself doesn’t improve teaching. Teachers need classroom support and effective professional development to maximize the technologies; the hardware and software must be user-friendly and meet students’ needs; the pedagogy (which isn’t the technology) must demand high-quality interactions between students and teachers, and among students, with high expectations of all. Giving every student a laptop isn’t going to improve our teaching, and every student having a netbook isn’t an instructional model.

Budget priorities

Are significant dollars allocated to educational technology at the expense of other needed purchases? Tight school budgets require careful choices.

What guides decisions about educational technology? Will we purchase new band equipment to replace instruments that are un-playable, something that probably affects just a few students, or buy more devices for the computer lab, which benefits more students? If the latter, when do band students get needed instruments?

What about more devices for the school’s computer lab versus better adaptive technology for special needs students? Who decides? On what basis? Is there a long-term plan? Are teachers included in the decision making? I expect there’s a wide range of responses to these questions, but as one educator suggests, “Teachers should be designing their classrooms and schools and then discussing, with leaders and technologists, what devices can best support that design.”

School influencers

A quick rush to the clarion call for 21st century digital classrooms may come at a price beyond the cost of the technology itself. Several years ago, I was part of a team awarded a Striving Readers grant for adolescent learners, one of only eight grants awarded that year for this U.S. program. One condition of our receiving this award was that a specific computer-based program would serve as the instructional centerpiece. We had to accept one publisher’s product, unfamiliar to us, and had no opportunity to evaluate its appropriateness for our students.

A review of the research did find the program to have some positive effects on comprehension and general literacy achievement for adolescent learners, but this is not a guarantee of success for ALL students (and they did not all benefit in our program), but no alternatives were permitted.

In 2014, one large company describing its school-based grants explained, “Our grant programs are designed to apply [our] resources to specific projects and programs that fit within our targeted areas of interest ...” If schools are dependent on outside sources to fund technology, we should closely examine the strings that are attached to those monies.

We also cannot afford to mistake education entrepreneurs for educators. As one commentator suggests, “Philanthropy skews education policies to reflect the untested agendas of big donors.” For instance, between 2010–2012, Mark Zuckerburg donated $100 million to Newark, NJ, public schools primarily to support his preferences for charter schools and merit pay for teachers (based on performance and leading to layoffs). According to reports, significant donation dollars also went to consulting firms, reaching neither teachers nor classrooms.

Most of us probably acknowledge, accept, and maybe even admire and applaud the contribution education technology makes to student learning. If we use it judiciously and strategically, examining some of our assumptions and priorities as we plan instruction, our students and our teaching will surely benefit.

Jill Lewis-Spector (jlewisprof1@yahoo.com) is the ILA president and a professor emerita from New Jersey City University.