Learning Technologies: Research, Trends, and Issues in the U.S. Education System 3031181107, 9783031181108

Citation preview

Mesut Duran

Learning Technologies Research, Trends, and Issues in the U.S. Education System

Learning Technologies

Mesut Duran

Learning Technologies Research, Trends, and Issues in the U.S. Education System

Mesut Duran University of Michigan–Dearborn DEARBORN, MI, USA

ISBN 978-3-031-18110-8    ISBN 978-3-031-18111-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18111-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To the students, teachers, faculty, and education leaders dedicated to understanding and applying effective learning technologies in education. To my father and first grade teacher, Kemal Duran, who passed away on March 31, 2022, during the last stage of writing this book. Rest in peace, dad! Rabbim rahmetiyle muamele eylesin, mekanın cennet olsun inşallah. To my family: my wife Nurcan, my daughters Sena and Dua, and my son Kemal for their endless support and encouragement I received throughout the writing process. Thanks, Baba’s canları! Special thanks to Sena for reading the manuscript and providing editorial suggestions. To my editor, Melissa James, and the project coordinator, Sowmya Thodur, for guiding me throughout the publication process.

Preface

Digital technology resources such as computers, mobile devices, educational apps, the World Wide Web, and broadband Internet are readily available for educational use. The literature includes multiple terms to describe digital technology use in education. For instance, learning technologies, educational technology, instructional technology, and information communication technology (ICT) are among them. Even though there might be some nuances in details, these terms are used interchangeably for the present book, describing digital technology applications to enhance teaching, learning, and “creative inquiry.” A prevailing expectation of contemporary education in the USA is that digital technologies should enrich the nation’s schools. Yet, the rapid rate and pace of technological advancement in education have been highly debated. Moreover, given the remote learning challenges and opportunities that the COVID-19 pandemic has recently brought to the world’s attention, interest in educational technology discussion is at its peak. Addressing a comprehensive list of topics and issues, the author of the present book aims to contribute to the discussion and provide guidance to educators, education leaders, researchers, and policy makers, as they navigate school technology initiatives. Commonly, schools have considered particular components of technology enterprise but have not regarded them as part of a more comprehensive, interconnected system. This oversight limits the ability to address pressing technology issues. Therefore, it is vital to understand various components and how they interact within a more extensive system—a learning technology ecosystem. In particular, with a historical context covering the past 20 years, the book addresses the research, trends, and issues related to learning technologies in (a) K-12 schools, (b) higher education, and (c) educational administration in the US education system. It is important to note that the US education system is highly decentralized, and policies and practices may vary in different states and school districts. Therefore, the discussions presented in this book address general patterns of educational technology practices. Three primary resources guided the discussions in the book. First is an extensive literature review related to the book’s central focus—learning technologies in the vii

viii

Preface

US education system. Second, the author’s discussion informs the book’s content on over 20 years of professional teaching, research, and scholarship experiences on educational technology at a major US research university. And third, the viewpoints and comments of students in the graduate-level educational technology courses that the author regularly teaches and collects data from present the vital viewpoint of practicing teachers and educational leaders regarding how learning technologies affect their schools and their work. The present book consists of 11 different but interrelated chapters. In the introductory chapter (Chap. 1), the author first describes the book’s purpose around the central theme—research, trends, and issues related to learning technologies in the US education system. The author next provides an overview of the education system in the USA, which gives the context for the discussions presented in the book. Finally, the chapter ends by describing the organization of the book. After the introduction, the book presents a wide range of developments in learning technologies impacting K-12 education in the USA. This section first provides a theoretical and historical perspective on technology integration (Chap. 2). Then, the developments concerning emerging technology in K-12 education (Chap. 3) and assistive technologies for special education (Chap. 4) are brought to the readers’ attention. What follows next are historical and ongoing issues related to funding for technology and the digital divide (Chap. 5), legal and ethical issues in educational technology (Chap. 6), and online learning in K-12 education (Chap. 7). Finally, at the end of the K-12 section, the digital citizenship discussion (Chap. 8) as an umbrella topic for the K-12 area recaps earlier discussions and adds new dimensions. Following the discussion on K-12 education, the focus moves to the higher education sector, addressing various learning technologies and related developments in post-secondary institutions (Chap. 9). This section first describes US universities’ common learning technology practices, including classroom technology, blended learning, online instruction, and massive open online courses (MOOCs). Next, the chapter discusses technology integration into teacher-preparation programs. Subsequently, the chapter addresses emerging technologies in higher education. Then, the author writes about the current trends and developments in higher education as they impact technology initiatives. Finally, writing in this particular chapter ends with discussions on critical issues related to higher education learning technology practices and their implications for policy and practice. In the final section, the book presents the research, trends, and issues related to technology for administrators and educational leaders as they guide digital age learning (Chap. 10). Within this context, the writing first focuses on effective technology leadership practices such as establishing a vision and strategic planning for learning technologies, creating digital age learning cultures, promoting continuous improvement and professional growth, building systematic improvements, and promoting equity, inclusion, and digital citizenship. The chapter then discusses current trends and issues in guiding digital age learning and the challenges school administrators have recently faced with the surge of COVID-19. In the book’s final chapter (Chap. 11), the author summarizes the arguments presented in the individual chapters and discusses how they fit together. Finally, the

Preface

ix

writer ends the chapter and the book with discussions on implications for policy and practice. Several constituents will benefit from the writings in this book. First, undergraduate and graduate students, K-12 teachers, and higher education faculty interested in understanding the opportunities and issues that the learning technologies present in the classroom will benefit from the content of this book. Similarly, decision makers at schools, school districts, and universities, such as principals and assistant principals, technology directors, superintendents, and university executives, will find the discussions and guidance presented in this book helpful as they lead technology initiatives. Third, higher education faculty members considering grant developments and research proposals related to learning technologies will find topics and discussions in this book valuable. Finally, policy makers will benefit from the writing in the book, as they consider policy decisions related to learning technologies and associated trends and issues. Dearborn, MI, USA

Mesut Duran

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of some of the discussions presented in Chaps. 2, 3, and 5 appeared as a book chapter in Global Education Systems: The Education Systems of the Americas (Eds. Sieglinde Jornitz & Marcelo Parreira do Amaral), published by Springer Nature Switzerland AG and reproduced by permission of the publisher.

xi

Contents

1

Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.1 Definition������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.2 Purpose of the Book��������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.3 Overview of the U.S. Education System������������������������������������������    2 1.3.1 Organization and Structure ��������������������������������������������������    3 1.3.2 Education Policy and Administration ����������������������������������    5 1.4 Organization of the Book������������������������������������������������������������������    7 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    9

2

Technology Integration����������������������������������������������������������������������������   11 2.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   11 2.2 Purpose of the Chapter����������������������������������������������������������������������   12 2.3 What Technology Integration Is and What It Isn’t����������������������������   13 2.3.1 What Is Not Technology Integration?����������������������������������   13 2.3.2 Where Does Technology Integration Happen? ��������������������   14 2.3.3 What Is Successful Technology Integration?������������������������   14 2.4 Technology Integration Models��������������������������������������������������������   16 2.4.1 TPACK Framework��������������������������������������������������������������   17 2.4.2 SAMR Model������������������������������������������������������������������������   18 2.5 Why Is Technology Integration Important?��������������������������������������   18 2.5.1 Impact on Differentiated Instruction������������������������������������   19 2.5.2 Impact on Student Engagement and Motivation������������������   20 2.5.3 Impact on Academic Achievement ��������������������������������������   21 2.5.4 Implications for Twenty-First Century Skills ����������������������   22 2.6 Current Trends in the U.S. to Address Technology Integration��������   23 2.6.1 Initiatives in Preservice Teacher Preparation Programs��������   23 2.6.2 Professional Development in In-service Teacher Education   25 2.6.3 Revisions in Educational Technology Standards for Students��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   25 2.7 Issues Related to Technology Integration ����������������������������������������   26 2.7.1 Technocentrism ��������������������������������������������������������������������   26 xiii

xiv

Contents

2.7.2 Pedagogical Dogmatism ������������������������������������������������������   27 2.7.3 Technology Integration as a Wicked Problem����������������������   27 2.8 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   28 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   30 3

 merging Technologies in K-12 Education��������������������������������������������   35 E 3.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   35 3.2 Purpose of the Chapter����������������������������������������������������������������������   36 3.3 Important Developments in Emerging Technologies������������������������   36 3.3.1 STEAM Learning�����������������������������������������������������������������   37 3.3.2 Coding����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   38 3.3.3 Makerspace ��������������������������������������������������������������������������   38 3.3.4 Robotics��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   39 3.3.5 Learning Analytics����������������������������������������������������������������   39 3.3.6 Virtual Reality (VR)��������������������������������������������������������������   41 3.3.7 Artificial Intelligence (AI)����������������������������������������������������   42 3.3.8 The Internet of Things (IoT) ������������������������������������������������   42 3.4 Current Trends Affecting Decision-Making in Emerging Technologies ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   43 3.4.1 Short-Term Trends����������������������������������������������������������������   43 3.4.2 Mid-Term Trends������������������������������������������������������������������   44 3.4.3 Long-Term Trends����������������������������������������������������������������   44 3.5 Issues Related to Emerging Technologies����������������������������������������   45 3.6 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   46 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   46

4

Assistive Technology��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   49 4.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   49 4.2 Purpose of the Chapter����������������������������������������������������������������������   51 4.3 Assistive Technology Background����������������������������������������������������   52 4.3.1 Critical Terminologies����������������������������������������������������������   52 4.3.2 History����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   53 4.3.3 Population and Demographics����������������������������������������������   53 4.3.4 Categorization of Assistive Technology��������������������������������   56 4.4 Instructional Challenges for Special Needs Students ����������������������   56 4.5 Assistive Technology Applications ��������������������������������������������������   57 4.5.1 Communication Applications ����������������������������������������������   57 4.5.2 Mobility and Positioning Applications ��������������������������������   59 4.5.3 Computer Access Applications ��������������������������������������������   60 4.5.4 Vision and Hearing Applications������������������������������������������   61 4.5.5 Behavior and Organization Applications������������������������������   62 4.5.6 Instructional Aid Applications����������������������������������������������   63 4.6 Strategies for Assistive Technology Integration in Instruction ��������   65 4.7 Benefits of Assistive Technology in the Classroom��������������������������   66 4.8 Current Trends in Assistive Technology ������������������������������������������   68 4.9 Issues Related to Assistive Technology��������������������������������������������   69

Contents

xv

4.10 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   69 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   71 5

 unding for Technology and the “Digital Divide”��������������������������������   75 F 5.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   75 5.2 Purpose of the Chapter����������������������������������������������������������������������   76 5.3 Funding for Technology��������������������������������������������������������������������   77 5.4 The Digital Divide����������������������������������������������������������������������������   78 5.4.1 Economic Divide������������������������������������������������������������������   79 5.4.2 Usability Divide��������������������������������������������������������������������   80 5.4.3 Empowerment Divide ����������������������������������������������������������   80 5.5 Prospect for Bridge Building������������������������������������������������������������   81 5.6 Digital Divide Under COVID-19 Pandemic ������������������������������������   82 5.7 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   84 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   85

6

 egal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology����������������������������   89 L 6.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   89 6.2 Purpose of the Chapter����������������������������������������������������������������������   90 6.3 Legal Issues in Educational Technology������������������������������������������   90 6.3.1 Plagiarism ����������������������������������������������������������������������������   91 6.3.2 Copyright and Fair Use��������������������������������������������������������   93 6.3.3 Safety and Privacy����������������������������������������������������������������   99 6.4 Ethical Issues in Educational Technology����������������������������������������  102 6.4.1 Netiquette������������������������������������������������������������������������������  102 6.4.2 Cyberbullying ����������������������������������������������������������������������  107 6.4.3 Objectionable Materials and Educational Control����������������  111 6.5 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  113 Appendix����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  115 Appendix A––Dearborn Public Schools, Student Acceptable Use Guidelines����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  115 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  119

7

 nline Learning in K-12 Education������������������������������������������������������  123 O 7.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  123 7.2 Purpose of the Chapter����������������������������������������������������������������������  124 7.3 Online Learning��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  124 7.3.1 Accessibility��������������������������������������������������������������������������  126 7.3.2 Mobility��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  128 7.3.3 Credibility ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  129 7.4 Blended Learning������������������������������������������������������������������������������  131 7.5 Remote Learning Surge Under COVID-19��������������������������������������  133 7.6 Current Trends in Online Learning ��������������������������������������������������  136 7.6.1 Hybrid Schools���������������������������������������������������������������������  136 7.6.2 Independent Providers����������������������������������������������������������  137 7.6.3 Edupreneurs��������������������������������������������������������������������������  137 7.7 Issues Related to Online Learning����������������������������������������������������  138

xvi

Contents

7.7.1 Digital Divide������������������������������������������������������������������������  138 7.7.2 Efficacy ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������  139 7.7.3 Data Privacy��������������������������������������������������������������������������  139 7.8 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  140 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  141 8

Digital Citizenship������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  145 8.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  145 8.2 Purpose of the Chapter����������������������������������������������������������������������  146 8.3 Citizenship in the Digital Age����������������������������������������������������������  147 8.4 Nine Themes of Digital Citizenship�������������������������������������������������  149 8.4.1 Digital Access ����������������������������������������������������������������������  150 8.4.2 Digital Commerce����������������������������������������������������������������  150 8.4.3 Digital Communication and Collaboration��������������������������  150 8.4.4 Digital Etiquette��������������������������������������������������������������������  151 8.4.5 Digital Fluency����������������������������������������������������������������������  151 8.4.6 Digital Health and Welfare����������������������������������������������������  152 8.4.7 Digital Law ��������������������������������������������������������������������������  152 8.4.8 Digital Rights and Responsibility ����������������������������������������  153 8.4.9 Digital Security and Privacy ������������������������������������������������  153 8.5 Teaching Citizenship in Schools������������������������������������������������������  154 8.6 Current Trends in Digital Citizenship ����������������������������������������������  155 8.6.1 Stakeholder Engagement������������������������������������������������������  155 8.6.2 Positive Digital Citizenship��������������������������������������������������  156 8.7 Issues Related to Digital Citizenship������������������������������������������������  156 8.7.1 “One Life” or “Two Lives” ��������������������������������������������������  156 8.7.2 Research Gap������������������������������������������������������������������������  157 8.8 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  157 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  158

9

 earning Technologies in Higher Education ����������������������������������������  161 L 9.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  161 9.2 Purpose of the Chapter����������������������������������������������������������������������  162 9.3 Common Learning Technology Practices in Higher Education��������  163 9.3.1 Classroom Technology����������������������������������������������������������  163 9.3.2 Blended Learning������������������������������������������������������������������  164 9.3.3 Online Instruction ����������������������������������������������������������������  164 9.3.4 Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)����������������������������  165 9.4 Technology Integration into Teacher Preparation Programs������������  165 9.5 Emerging Technologies in Higher Education ����������������������������������  167 9.5.1 Artificial Intelligence (AI)����������������������������������������������������  168 9.5.2 Adaptive Learning����������������������������������������������������������������  169 9.5.3 Learning Analytics����������������������������������������������������������������  171 9.5.4 Learning Design��������������������������������������������������������������������  173 9.5.5 Extended Reality (XR)����������������������������������������������������������  174 9.5.6 Open Educational Resources (OER)������������������������������������  176

Contents

xvii

9.6 Current Trends Related to Learning Technologies in Higher Education������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  178 9.7 Critical Issues Related to Learning Technologies in Higher Education������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  179 9.8 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  180 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  181 10 L  earning Technologies and Educational Administration ��������������������  185 10.1 Introduction������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  185 10.2 Purpose of the Chapter��������������������������������������������������������������������  187 10.3 Visionary Leadership����������������������������������������������������������������������  187 10.3.1 School Technology Plans��������������������������������������������������  188 10.3.2 Modeling and Advocacy����������������������������������������������������  189 10.4 Digital Age Learning Culture����������������������������������������������������������  190 10.4.1 Technology and Learning Resources��������������������������������  190 10.4.2 Innovations in Pedagogy ��������������������������������������������������  191 10.5 Excellence in Professional Practice������������������������������������������������  191 10.5.1 Research-Based Professional Development����������������������  192 10.5.2 Professional Learning Communities ��������������������������������  193 10.6 Systemic Improvement ������������������������������������������������������������������  194 10.6.1 Student Information Systems��������������������������������������������  195 10.6.2 Learning Management Systems����������������������������������������  196 10.7 Promoting Digital Citizenship��������������������������������������������������������  197 10.7.1 Equity, Inclusion, and Digital Citizenship Practices��������  198 10.7.2 Contributing to Positive Social Change����������������������������  198 10.8 Current Trends in Guiding Digital Age Learning ��������������������������  198 10.8.1 Raising the Bar for School Administrators ����������������������  199 10.8.2 “Informal” Leadership Roles in Technology Implementations����������������������������������������������������������������  199 10.9 Current Issues in Guiding Digital Age Learning����������������������������  200 10.9.1 School Administration under COVID-19 Pandemic ��������  200 10.9.2 Administrative Turnover ��������������������������������������������������  200 10.10 Conclusion��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  201 Appendix����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  203 Appendix A – Personal Professional Growth Plan������������������������������   203 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  211 11 Conclusion������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  215 11.1 Summary ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  215 11.2 Learning Technology Ecosystem����������������������������������������������������  218 11.3 Implications for Policy and Practice ����������������������������������������������  219 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  223 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  225

Chapter 1

Introduction

A learning technology ecosystem.

1.1 Definition A variety of digital technology resources are available for educational use. The list includes but is not limited to computers (i.e., desktops, laptops, and notebooks), mobile devices (i.e., smartphones and tablets), educational apps, the world wide web, and broadband Internet. The scholarly literature includes multiple terms to describe digital technology use in education, such as learning technologies, instructional technology, educational technology, and information communication technology (ICT). The present book uses these terms interchangeably, describing digital technology applications to enhance teaching, learning, and “creative inquiry.”

1.2 Purpose of the Book Education is an essential part of a larger ecosystem called “life” – here, an ecosystem describes the intersection of a wide array of components (Díaz-Gibson & Daly, 2020). Within, education presents itself as another ecosystem in which learning technologies are part of a larger set of interacting critical components, such as the teaching, learning, and curriculum – this is the learning ecosystem. Furthermore, learning technologies themselves feature another ecosystem where several related entities interact, like technology funding, curriculum integration, teacher training, and several more – which in turn, comprises the learning technology ecosystem. This book aims to assist educators, educational leaders, researchers, and policymakers in considering the ecosystem metaphor in school technology initiatives. Understanding different components and how they interact within a larger system is essential. Typically, schools have considered individual components of technology enterprise but have not viewed them as part of a more extensive connected system. This oversight has inhibited the ability to address pressing technology issues.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Duran, Learning Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18111-5_1

1

2

1 Introduction

Addressing several distinct but interrelated topics and issues in the following nine chapters, this book offers an in-depth analysis of learning technologies in the U.S. education system. In particular, with a historical context covering the past 20 years, this book highlights research, trends, and issues related to learning technologies in (a) K-12 schools, (b) higher education, and (c) educational administration. The conclusion section of the book addresses how discussions presented in individual chapters fit together as parts that can function alone but should not be disconnected from the whole. It is also essential to highlight that, as Lynch (2016) aptly puts it, “technology is an experience … not just about exciting new gadgets and apps … [and] each major new development leads to new experiences and unchartered territory.” Therefore, this book is all about sharing learning technology experiences in the context of a particular country – the United States– from a specific writer –the author– and a distinct perspective –an educator– which should enable new insights among readers.

1.3 Overview of the U.S. Education System In 2005, the U.S.  Department of Education (DOE) prepared an overview of the education system in the U.S.  In line with the overview; the following section describes the essential features and overall characteristics of education in the U.S to provide contextual information for the reader, particularly the international audience. In other words, understanding the context surrounding the nation’s education system helps comprehend the discussions’ intent and direction in varying chapters. For instance, understanding the roles of local, state, and federal government in education benefits readers to recognize how technology-related decisions are made and executed at varying decision-making levels. Similarly, understanding the financing of education in the U.S contributes a context for the discussion related to funding for technology and the “digital divide.” Last but not least, understanding varying school governances that the U.S. applies in the education system puts the discussion of learning technologies and educational administration into an informed perspective. The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) (2005) discussed that the nation had valued education from its earliest days, considering learning as a means of promoting liberty and freedom and where schools could prepare productive citizens. The current population in the U.S. is over 330 million (U.S.  Census Bureau, 2022). According to 2018 data, over 76 million students were enrolled in K-12 schools and universities nationwide, with about 25% of the population being three years and older (U.S.  Census Bureau, 2018). In addition, the Census Bureau reported that about 58 million students attend elementary and secondary schools, and over 18 million enrolled in post-secondary institutions. Fossum (2020) described U.S. education as “national in character,” though it offers a mainly decentralized system concerning its structure, administration, and finances. The author further explained that states have the formal responsibility for

1.3  Overview of the U.S. Education System

3

primary and secondary education, and local institutions set the directions and operate schooling. Therefore, Fossum noted that U.S. education includes a reasonable degree of heterogeneity. The U.S. Department of Education (2005) explained further that the U.S. has no national school system or national curriculum laws controlling educational aspects. The DOE also described that the federal government does not regulate educational institutions; thus, policies and practices might vary at the state and school district levels. The following section presents further discussion concerning the organization, structure, policy, and administration of education in the U.S.

1.3.1 Organization and Structure The overall education structure in the U.S includes early childhood education, elementary and secondary education, and post-secondary education. The U.S. Department of Education (2005) described that early childhood education comes in various forms, including daycare centers, preschools, and kindergartens. Roughly 60% of children ages 3 to 5-year-olds attend preschool (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021). In addition, most 5-year-olds participate in free kindergarten offered by public elementary schools. Generally, the timeline for elementary and secondary education students spans twelve academic years; five years in elementary school, three years in middle school, and four years in high school. Students typically complete high school by age 17. Post-secondary options for high school graduates include attending technical or vocational institutions, a community or junior college (often two-year programs), or a four-year college or university. Attending school is required in all states. However, mandatory attendance ages vary by state, ending at age 16 in most states, at age 17, and age 18 in others (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). The DOE also noted that U.S. public school education is accessible to students and families supported through taxation. In addition, most public schools include boys and girls attending schools together, although a small number of private schools offer gender-segregated courses. The academic year consists of 180 days in most states, where the school year starts in early September and continues until June. Typically, most schools offer around two weeks of a break at the end of December, and a one-week break around March or April. Even though individual schools may have varying daily schedules, they typically run from about 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. Afterschool activities such as sports, clubs, and performing arts are also common, especially at the secondary level. States develop curriculum guidelines to provide general instruction to school districts about identifying the specific educational program’s philosophies and objectives and developing instructional resources and assessments (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). The DOE noted that these guidelines describe what students should achieve through schooling and assist teachers in attaining these goals. Within

4

1 Introduction

the parameters of set guidelines, schools and teachers have the flexibility to decide on content details and instructional delivery methods. Students’ public school placements generally follow residency requirements. Other options for public schools include those that function as schools of choice, charter schools, magnet schools, open enrollment programs, and schools that take place virtually (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). In addition, parents have private school options. The DOE reported that over 30 thousand private elementary and secondary schools in the U.S educate about five million students. According to Broughman et al. (2021), close to 66% of private schools are religiously affiliated, while the remainder is non-sectarian. In addition, independent organizations own and operate private schools. Therefore, funding for these schools includes nonpublic sources such as tuition payments or donations from foundations, affiliated religious bodies, alums, or other private donors. Finally, another schooling option for parents is homeschooling. Based on 2016 data, homeschooling served about 1.7 million students (National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2019). Several federal laws govern educational services to special education students in public schools and prohibit discrimination based on disability (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). As a result, most special needs students (95%) receive education in traditional schools, while others attend separate institutions for students with special needs (NCES, 2021a). In addition, about 6% of public school students benefit from special programs provided for gifted and talented students, usually in standard school settings (De Brey et al., 2021). Educational materials, including but not limited to textbooks and digital technology resources, are available to students in public schools. In some institutions, students can borrow books for free from the school throughout the academic year. In addition, instructional technologies are accessible in K-12 schools, colleges, and universities. For example, nearly all public schools have accessed the Internet since 2003 (U.S.  Department of Education, 2005). However, multiple other challenges persist, such as preparing technology-proficient teachers and the “digital divide” among students with varying socioeconomic backgrounds; Chaps. 2 and 5 present further details on these particular topics. Elementary and secondary school teachers in the U.S. are required to receive preservice training from four-year colleges or universities. Although the curriculum is bound to vary based on the university and state, most prospective teachers are expected to have an undergraduate degree and pass a teacher certification exam (U.S.  Department of Education, 2005). In addition, many public school teachers pursue master’s degrees and additional in-service training while working. In general, the department of education in each state provides teaching certificates for K-12 school teachers. In each state, the public school districts hire prospective teachers, or private schools hire the teachers they want to employ. During the 2017–2018 school year, there were 3.5 million full- and part-time public school teachers, nearly half of those serving in elementary schools and another half in secondary schools (NCES, 2021b). About 4000 degree-granting postsecondary institutions, such as colleges, universities, and community colleges in the U.S., serve 16.6 million undergraduate and 3.1

1.3  Overview of the U.S. Education System

5

million graduate students (NCES, 2021c). However, federal laws do not control college degree titles leaving the discretion to post-secondary institutions for their degree, program, and graduation requirements (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).

1.3.2 Education Policy and Administration The U.S. includes 50 states, five territories (American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S.  Virgin Islands), and the District of Columbia. As described above, individual states control education policy with a decentralized system as long as they do not violate the U.S. Constitution or federal laws (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). The following section briefly explains the responsibilities of the three levels of government in assembling and implementing education policy. This begins at the state level and then turns to address the local and federal levels. The section then highlights the role of the courts and other non-­ governmental organizations. Finally, the writing ends with a brief description of education financing. In most states, the constitution authorizes the state’s legislatures as the leading authority over educational matters, including passing rulings and allocating educational funds (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). However, the DOE also noted that state legislatures delegate most of their charges to the state board of education, which is in turn then accountable for authorizing statewide educational policies and defining budget priorities. In addition, the DOE pointed out that the department of education for many states operates as the state’s executive agency. Most states empower local education agencies or districts to operate public elementary and secondary schools. The U.S. is home to 13,551 regular school districts, according to 2017–18 data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2021d). As a result, most school districts receive notable control over school budgets and educational programs. Similarly, most school districts further delegate academic and financial responsibilities to individual schools allowing school-based management (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). A local school board governs school districts, mostly aligning their work with the state legislature’s rules and regulations (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). The DOE noted that school board members are usually elected, but other government officials in some districts may appoint them. Finally, the school board is in charge of selecting and appointing the district superintendent. The superintendent is responsible for executing policy decisions and managing the school district’s daily operations. As described above, education in the U.S is mainly a state and local responsibility. Yet, the federal government plays a finite though crucial role in education policy and practice (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). For instance, the DOE stated that the U.S.  Congress, as the highest legislative body in the nation, has passed multiple laws impacting education directly or indirectly. In addition, the U.S.  Department of Education, as the federal government’s central education

6

1 Introduction

agency, executes the federal legislation to support education, such as coordinating federal financial assistance for education. Furthermore, multiple other federal agencies, such as the Departments of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Museum and Library Services, and the National Science Foundation, provide funding and additional support for educational initiatives. Some other sectors and entities in the U.S. can influence education policy and practice (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). For example, the DOE pointed out that the federal and state courts have historically been pivotal to education, both directly and indirectly. For instance, the court rulings have provided direction and settled public policy discussions on educational quality, equal access, and school funding. The DOE further reported that varying non-governmental organizations also impact educational policy decisions and instructional practices. The DOE named the business community as the prime example, often supporting education and influencing policy. In addition, charitable foundations, teacher unions, and parent-­teacher associations are among the many other non-governmental organizations interested in educational matters. Education financing in the U.S. is decentralized, receiving funding from the federal, state, and local governments and private and non-governmental sectors (U.S.  Department of Education, 2005). Based on 2014–2015 data from various sources, the annual estimated size of the education industry in the U.S. was 1.4 trillion dollars (Evergreen Education Group, 2017). The report explained that the total figure included all the yearly funding and revenue going to K–12 through graduate schools generated by nonprofit and for-profit education companies. The aggregate size of the education enterprise is the second largest, following healthcare in the U.S. Evergreen Education Group further explained that a relatively significant portion of the education funding ($670 billion) went to K-12 education. Other segments included; U.S. Textbooks (about $14 billion), U.S. digital content and tools excluding hardware ($8.4 billion), and U.S testing and assessment ($2.5 billion). Itemized K-12 area expenditure included $8 billion for textbooks, $10.2 billion for hardware and associated spending, and $350 million for learning management systems (LMS) and platforms. Overall, the U.S. education market will reach $1.96 trillion by 2025 (Nagel, 2021). The U.S. Department of Education (2005) explained that the state and local governments provide the most funding for K-12 schools, 90% on a national average. An additional 10% of the budget comes from the federal government, non-­governmental entities, and private contributors through grants and donations. State governments generate education funding from income, corporate, and sales taxes. Local school districts mainly depend on property taxes (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). The DOE further discussed that community property values vary, resulting in funding disparities. As a result, some states provide supplemental funding to schools with limited resources to address this issue through “equalization of funding” laws. Similarly, the federal government provides additional funding to schools in disadvantaged areas through qualifying education programs. Post-secondary institutions generate revenue from varying sources, such as tuition and fees, federal and state funds, sales and services, private contributions,

1.4  Organization of the Book

7

grants and contracts, and endowment earnings (U.S.  Department of Education, 2005). Therefore, the DOE reported that universities and colleges differ significantly in funding resources and revenues, particularly public and private institutions. In conclusion, as the U.S.  Department of Education (2005) highlighted, the country’s education system relies on many people from varying levels of the government. However, the DOE underlined that providing quality education for every child is the overarching theme while teaching in the nation is continually progressing.

1.4 Organization of the Book This book consists of eleven different but interrelated chapters, all trying to conceptualize one technology ecosystem in K-16 education. The author considered three-­ level organizations in writing, focusing on K-12-related topics first, then higher education, and finally educational administration. This overall flow is designed based on the three initial audiences that the proposed book targets: professionals in K-12 education, those interested in educational technology and instructional design work in higher education, and those educators whom they have an interest in educational administration. At the individual chapter level, the flow follows the author’s particular writing strategy for the issues covered: first brings a historical perspective and then discusses current research, trends, and issues. This introductory chapter (Chap. 1) described the book’s purpose around the central theme–research, trends, and issues related to learning technologies in the U.S. education system. Next, the writing provided an overview of the education system in the U.S., presenting a context for the discussions and issues addressed in the book. In the following section (Chaps. 2–8), the book presents a wide range of developments in learning technologies as it impacts K-12 education, exploring and analyzing the following key issues: Technology integration; Emerging technologies in K-12 education; Assistive technology; Funding for technology and the “digital divide”; Legal and ethical issues in educational technology; Online learning in K-12 education; and Digital citizenship. Each chapter describes these critical issues in their most recent stages and the implications for policy and practices that these issues introduce. Chapter 2 first provides a theoretical and historical perspective on technology integration. Next, the writing includes discussions related to technology integration models. Further, the chapter explores perceptions and realities associated with the impact of technology integration in the teaching and learning process. Finally, the chapter addresses current trends and issues concerning technology integration. In Chap. 3, the author focuses on emerging technologies in K-12 education. The chapter first addresses STEM Learning, Coding, Makerspaces, Robotics, Learning Analytics, Virtual Reality (VR), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and the Internet of Things. Next, the author writes about the current trends affecting decision-making

8

1 Introduction

in emerging technologies. The final discussion addresses the issues related to emerging technologies in K-12 education. Writing in Chap. 4 focuses on assistive technology. The chapter first presents background information about assistive technology in U.S. schools. The writing next addresses instructional challenges for special needs students. Then, the chapter focuses on assistive technology applications in communication, mobility and positioning, computer access, vision and hearing, behavior and organization, and instructional aids. Further, the chapter describes strategies for assistive technology integration in instruction, followed by the benefit of assistive technology in the classroom. Finally, the chapter examines current trends and issues related to assistive technology. Addressing the funding for technology and the “digital divide,” Chap. 5 first brings discussions related to technology financing. Next, the chapter investigates the digital divide in its three forms–Economic dive, Usability divide, and Empowerment divide–followed by discussions related to prospects for bridge-­ building. The final part of the chapter focuses on the conversation about funding for technology and digital dive under the COVID-19 pandemic. In Chap. 6, the author discusses legal and ethical issues in educational technology. Writing first explores potential legal issues addressing plagiarism, copyright and fair use, and safety and privacy. Next, the author discusses ethical issues, including netiquette, cyberbullying, objectionable materials, and educational control. Finally, the chapter summarizes the critical issues addressed and their implications for policy and practice. As online learning gains roots in K-12 education, Chap. 7 presents the discussion. The chapter first addresses online learning and blended learning opportunities in K-12 education. Next, remote learning surges under COVID-19 take a special place. Finally, the author concludes the chapter by addressing current trends and issues in K-12 online learning. Chapter 8 closes K-12-focused discussions with an overarching concept of digital citizenship. The chapter first describes the characteristics of citizenship in the digital age highlighting the “nine themes” of digital citizenship. The writing then focuses on teaching citizenship in schools. Finally, the chapter ends by addressing the issues related to digital citizenship. Following the discussion on K-12 education, the focus moves to the higher education sector, addressing a wide range of learning technologies and related developments in post-secondary institutions (Chap. 9). The chapter first describes U.S. universities’ standard learning technology practices, including common classroom technology, blended learning, online instruction, and massive open online courses (MOOCs). Next, the chapter discusses technology integration into teacher preparation programs. Subsequently, the chapter addresses emerging technologies in higher education, including artificial intelligence, adaptive learning, learning analytics, learning design, extended reality, and open education resources. Then, the author writes about the current trends and developments in higher education as they impact technology initiatives. Finally, writing in this particular chapter ends with

References

9

discussions on critical issues in higher education learning technology practices and their implications for policy and practice. In the final section, Chap. 10, the book presents the research, trends, and issues related to technology for administrators and educational leaders as they guide digital age learning. Within this context, the writing first focuses on effective technology leadership practices such as establishing a vision and strategic planning for learning technologies, creating digital age learning culture, promoting continuous improvement and professional growth, building systematic improvements, and promoting equity, inclusion, and digital citizenship. The chapter then discusses current trends and issues in guiding digital age learning, including the challenges school administrators have recently faced with the surge of COVID-19. In the book’s conclusion chapter (Chap. 11), the author summarizes the arguments presented in the individual chapters and discusses how they fit together as part of an envisioned learning technology ecosystem. Finally, the writer ends the chapter and the book with discussions on implications for policy and practice.

References Broughman, S., Kincel, B., Willinger, J., & Peterson, J. (2021). Characteristics of private schools in the United States: Results from the 2019–20 private school universe survey. National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2021061. Accessed 28 January 2022. De Brey, C., Snyder, T. D., Zhang, A., & Dillow, S.A. (2021). Digest of education statistics 2019. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2021/2021009.pdf. Accessed 28 January 2022. Díaz-Gibson, J., & Daly, A. J. (2020). What if we understand schools as learning ecosystems in times of COVID-19 pandemic. Teachers College Record. https://www.tcrecord.org/Content. asp?ContentID=23374. Accessed 28 May 2022. Evergreen Education Group. (2017). Keeping with K-12 online learning 2016. https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED576762.pdf. Accessed 1 February 2022. Fossum, P. (2020). The education system of the United States of America: Overview and foundation. In S. Jornitz & Parreira do Amaral, P. (Eds.), The education system of the America (Global education system series). Springer International Publishing. Lynch, M. (2016). The dark side of educational technology. The Edvocate. https://www.theedadvocate.org/dark-­side-­educational-­technology. Accessed 18 January 2019. Nagel, D. (2021). Overall U.S. education market to hit $1.96 trillion by 2025. Accessed 30 January 2022. https://thejournal.com/articles/2021/07/27/overall-­u.s.-­education-­market-­to-­hit-­1.96-­ trillion-­by-­2025.aspx. National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Homeschooling. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=91. Accessed 28 January 2022. National Center for Education Statistics. (2021a). Students with disabilities. U.S.  Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display. asp?id=59#:~:text=In%20fall%202018%2C%20some%2095,in%20one%20of%20the%20 following. Accessed 28 January 2022. National Center for Education Statistics. (2021b). Characteristics of public school teachers. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/ coe/indicator/clr#fn1. Accessed 29 January 2022.

10

1 Introduction

National Center for Education Statistics. (2021c). Characteristics of postsecondary students. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/ coe/indicator/csb#:~:text=In%20fall%202019%2C%20there%20were,institutions%20in%20 the%20United%20States. Accessed 29 January 2022. National Center for Education Statistics. (2021d). Digest of education statistics 2019 (55th ed.). U.S.  Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2021/2021009.pdf. Accessed 30 January 2022. U.S.  Census Bureau. (2018). More than 76 million students enrolled in U.S. schools, Census Bureau reports. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-­releases/2018/school-­enrollment. html. Accessed 27 January 2022. U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). Heightened focus on early childhood education programs as preschool enrollment increased before COVID-19. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/11/pre-­ pandemic-­early-­childhood-­enrollment-­expanded-­as-­more-­enrolled-­public-­preschool.html. Accessed 27 January 2022. U.S.  Census Bureau. (2022). Population. https://www.census.gov/topics/population.html. Accessed 30 May 2022. U.S.  Department of Education. (2005). Education in the United States: A brief overview, Washington, D.C., 2005. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/edus/index. html. Accessed 26 January 2022.

Chapter 2

Technology Integration

A theoretical and historical perspective.

2.1 Introduction A rich collection of digital learning resources like computers, mobile devices, educational apps, the world wide web, and broadband Internet is available for educational use. The literature includes multiple terms describing digital technology use in education, such as learning technologies, instructional technology, educational technology, and information communication technology (ICT). These terms are used interchangeably in the present chapter, describing digital technology applications to enhance teaching, learning, and “creative inquiry.” A prevailing expectation of contemporary U.S. education is that instruction in the nation’s schools should be enriched through the meaningful integration of technology (U. S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology, 2017). However, a common misconception is that educators know what constitutes technology integration in instruction and what does not qualify. For instance, Dias (1999) argued that although teachers are regularly expected to integrate technology, they often lack a helpful definition of the concept. Therefore, the present chapter first aims to clarify that question, presenting different perspectives on the issue: what technology integration is and what it is not. Following the discussions related to technology integration, the chapter presents technology integration models that received attention in the literature. This section discusses the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework and SAMR (substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition) model. Next, the chapter addresses the seemingly straightforward question of why technology integration is critical in varying educational circumstances and settings. Particular attention is given to exploring the impact of technology integration on differentiated instruction, student engagement and motivation, academic achievement, and twenty-first century skills.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Duran, Learning Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18111-5_2

11

12

2  Technology Integration

After addressing the “what” and “why” questions regarding technology integration, the chapter brings discussions related to the current trends in technology integration in the U.S. context. Considering a broad historical background, three particular topics are important under this discussion: initiatives in preservice teacher preparation programs, professional development in in-service teacher education, and revisions in national educational technology standards for students over the years. Issues related to technology integration are addressed next in the chapter elaborating on three conceptual topics that remain unsettled in the educational technology literature: “technocentrism,” “pedagogical dogmatism,” and technology integration as a “wicked problem.” Finally, the chapter describes the most recent stage of the critical issues discussed and the implications for policy and practices these issues introduce. Three primary resources guided the discussions in this chapter. First, an extensive literature review pursues the chapter’s central focus—technology integration— and includes studies published over the last two decades and accessed via multiple databases, journals, and available web resources. Second, also informing the chapter’s discussion are the author’s reflections on over 20 years of professional teaching experience focused on educational technology and conducted at a comprehensive U.S. research university. Significant published scholarship regarding technology integration in teacher preparation programs and trends and issues pertinent to educational technology further augments this expert perspective. And third, the observations and viewpoints of participants in a graduate-level online course called Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology enrich the chapter’s discussion. The course acquaints the students with research, trends, and issues in education within the contemporary digital era, addressing a wide range of technological developments and investigating key topics concerning technology in the contemporary classroom (University of Michigan-Dearborn, n.d.). The author regularly teaches and collects data from this course, informing critical developments in technology integration in the U.S. from the vital viewpoint of practicing teachers, extending to a range of changes affecting their schools and their work within them.

2.2 Purpose of the Chapter Using learning technologies effectively in education requires a crucial first step; defining and understanding technology integration in instruction. This chapter aims to clarify what technology integration is and what it isn’t. Creating a shared vision of technology integration and making educators aware of the answer is a crucial first step in using digital technologies in education. It is also essential for educators to be familiar with technology integration models. The writing explains two models of this nature that received attention in the literature. It is equally important to understand the impact of technology integration in the teaching and learning process. Varying perspectives and perceptions on this issue are striking. The chapter

2.3  What Technology Integration Is and What It Isn’t

13

highlights the importance of contextual problems in recognizing the technology impact in varying educational circumstances and settings. This way, educators would better understand the rapid growth of digital technologies and the intricacies of classroom life.

2.3 What Technology Integration Is and What It Isn’t Based on scholarly literature, the following section presents different perspectives on the issue of what technology integration is and what it is not, followed by discussions in the next section related to technology integration models.

2.3.1 What Is Not Technology Integration? In general, pertinent literature provides a consistent view regarding what should not be considered technology integration. For example, in an early contribution to an extended scholarly dialogue regarding the effective use of instructional technology, Morton (1996) suggested that technology integration is more than seeing the computer as a “tool.” From that standpoint, the author noted that the computer comes to be considered a mere “add-on.” Morton stressed that such an understanding could mislead instructional designers by implying that computer technology was akin to any other classroom tool, such as the blackboard or overhead projector, that may require little training for appropriate use. In addition, the author maintained that the “computer as tool” model allows curriculum developers to continue creating traditional, lecture-based learning designs in which “the computer environment remains peripheral, an add-on in space and time” (p. 417). Following Morton’s arguments, another writer from the late ’90s, Dias (1999), added that taking students to the computer lab once a week is not necessarily integration. Similarly, Dias said that neither “using the computer as an electronic worksheet” nor considering them to be classroom rewards is not effective technology integration. Fast forward to the first decade of the new millennium, where schools are becoming more equipped with digital devices like computers, iPads, and Chromebook sets; Hertz (2011), concurring with those earlier views, pointed out that technology integration should focus on content learning, not just on student expertise with a tool. Echoing Hertz’s interpretation, Blair (2012) pointed out that for the twenty-­ first century learner, simply passively consuming technology in the classroom—in actions such as watching videos during class, playing drill and practice games, or even taking turns at a SmartBoard—is no longer enough to be considered successful technology integration. In other words, Blair argued just because students are receiving screen time does not necessarily mean that the technology is being integrated properly.

14

2  Technology Integration

In sum, the educational technology community has largely been clear on the notion that integrating technology is not about technology. Based on even early discourse in the field of instructional technology, a “technocentric” understanding of technology integration—resting as it does on the assumption that the main focus for student learning should be on how to use technology tools—has been rejected as a coherent viewpoint as to effective technology integration.

2.3.2 Where Does Technology Integration Happen? In answering the question of where technology integration happens, contrasting perspectives have aligned with the aspect of infrastructural availability. Some would argue that it occurs in the classroom. Yet, those who do not have readily available technology in their classrooms would say that it happens in computer labs elsewhere in their facilities. Others still, particularly those with wireless Internet access, would support the idea that technology integration takes place anytime, anywhere. All these varying answers are justifiable depending on context. However, a common understanding established early in the literature is that “technology integration does not happen in a particular location but [rather] in a specific type of learning environment” (Dias, 1999, p. 11)—in particular, in a learner-centered environment in which the instructor acts as a facilitator. Citing Jonassen (1995), Dias (1999) maintained that this type of environment has multiple aspects that make learning meaningful inasmuch as the environment is “active, constructive, collaborative, intentional, conversational, contextual, and reflective” (p. 11, 12).

2.3.3 What Is Successful Technology Integration? Integration, by definition, means that one thing is combined with another in such a way as to foster new and discrete whole results. Thus, where technology integration is concerned, technology and teaching converge to produce a new synthesis— technology-­integrated instruction. Dias (1999) described “seamless” integration as technology that is integrated harmoniously to support curriculum goals and engage students in the instructional process. Shortly after Dias’s writing, Earle (2002) described technology integration in the following way: Integrating technology is not about technology — it is primarily about content and effective instructional practices. Technology involves the tools with which we deliver content and implement practices in better ways. Its focus must be on curriculum and learning. Integration is defined not by the amount or type of technology used, but by how and why it is used. (p. 7)

Edutopia (2007) expanded on earlier definitions and indicated that effective technology integration happens “when the use of technology is routine and transparent, accessible and readily available for the task at hand,” supports “curricular goals,”

2.3  What Technology Integration Is and What It Isn’t

15

and helps the students “effectively reach their goals.” The article further argued that “when technology integration is at its best, a child or teacher doesn’t stop to think that he or she is using a technology tool—it is second nature.” Around this time, Mishra and Koehler (2006) introduced a Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, arguing that technology integration is an “interplay” among three main components of the learning environment: content, pedagogy, and technology. The authors further explained that no single technological solution fits every situation. Instead, effective instruction is achieved when a nuanced understanding is developed between technology, content, and pedagogy and when the account is then used to create context-specific learning strategies. The TPACK framework is further discussed in the next section of this chapter. Most practicing teachers would agree with the discussions in the literature presented above regarding effective technology integration. Even though it is a small subset, some of the K-12 teachers who have taken the Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology course in the fall of 2018 expressed their understanding of successful technology integration in the following ways: …To have students in engaged and meaningful learning; …to accomplish tasks that are not necessarily feasible without [technology integration]; …don’t think of it as integration, think of it as genuine learning; …routine and transparent, accessible and readily available for the task hand, supporting the curricular goals…; …to have an understanding of what they teach, how to teach it, and how technology is integrated appropriately; …intentional.

As the U.S.-based International Society for Technology in Education’s (ISTE) latest published Educational Technology Standards for Students (ISTE, 2016) emphasized, the primary focus for technology integration is “squarely on learning, not tools.” ISTE further argued that students still need to learn essential technology skills, though not as an end, but rather as a means to an end where students use technology as applicable to enhance their learning. In sum, scholarly work in instructional technology has emphasized that recognizing what technology integration is, what it isn’t, and where it happens to all comprise a necessary beginning of the journey down the integration path. But it is only a start. Recognizing the current trends and issues and understanding the technology integration process’s complexities are equally important goals. Creating a shared vision of technology integration and making educators aware of the answer comprise crucial next steps in the effective use of digital technologies in education from the standpoint of scholars in instructional technology. In the context of U.S. experiences over the last 20 years, much has been learned that a technocentric understanding of technology integration is insufficient and misguided. Educators, educational technology organizations, and policymakers agree that integrating technology is squarely on learning, not tools. The educational technology community is now more aware of technology integration’s contextual issues. The rapid growth of digital technologies and the complexities of classroom life are better understood. We have grasped that no single technological solution applies to every situation. We have concluded that effective teaching requires understanding and the application of appropriate, context-specific strategies (Koehler & Mishra,

16

2  Technology Integration

2008). Thus, we now agree constructive technology integration in instruction must consider content, pedagogy, and technology, not in silos but within complex relationships (Chen & McPheeters, 2012).

2.4 Technology Integration Models The literature on technology integration provides attention to two particular models: The Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework and the Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model. TPACK and SAMR are the most commonly adopted frameworks when considering effective technology integration. It is important to note that these models should not be considered in exclusion from one another, as both steer educators in the direction of integrating technology within their pedagogy and practice.

Fig. 2.1  Structure of TPACK framework. (“Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org”)

2.4  Technology Integration Models

17

2.4.1 TPACK Framework Mishra and Koehler (2006) introduced the TPACK framework for the teacher knowledge base concerning effective technology integration (see Fig. 2.1). As Fig. 2.1 above depicts, the TPACK framework first identifies three primary forms of teacher knowledge in a specific context that are not entirely separate: Content Knowledge (CK), Pedagogical Knowledge (PK), and Technological Knowledge (TK). Further, the framework highlights the intersections of each primary form of knowledge as essential knowledge domains for a deeper understanding: Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Technological Content Knowledge (TCK), and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK). Finally, the center of the diagram, TPACK, illustrates how the content, pedagogy, and technology knowledge intertwine in a dynamic relationship rather than seeing them in isolation to facilitate an effective learning environment (Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Schad et  al., 2021). Koehler (2012) described the seven components of the TPACK framework in the following way: • CK—Teachers’ subject matter knowledge for teaching and learning. • PK—Teachers’ knowledge about teaching and learning methods and strategies. • TK—Teachers’ knowledge about technology tools and resources, including their affordances and constraints. • PCK—Teachers’ knowledge about effective instructional strategies in a specific content area. • TCK—Teachers’ knowledge about effective technologies within a particular content area. • TPACK—Teachers’ knowledge about selecting appropriate pedagogy and technology in a specific content area for effective teaching and learning. Koehler (2012) further explained TPACK’s suggestion that effective technology integration with sound pedagogy for a specific subject matter requires attention to the components’ contextual issues. For instance, the author explained that every instructional situation is unique considering teacher background and experiences, grade level, student demographics, and other factors. Therefore, he noted that no single combination would fit every teaching and learning situation. However, as Harris and Hofer (2014) described, schools implementing the TPACK framework become more intentional about connecting the uses of learning technologies and resources to the curriculum, where the goal of building a school culture meets the needs of the digital age.

18

2  Technology Integration

Fig. 2.2  Structure of SAMR model. (Reproduced from the Wikimedia Commons, n.d.)

2.4.2 SAMR Model Around the same time that the TPACK framework was published, Puentedura (2006) brought another technology integration framework to the attention of the educational technology community—the SAMR model. As presented in Fig. 2.2. below, the model highlights varying degrees of technology-enhanced learning that presents itself in the classroom—“substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition” (SAMR). The SAMR model’s first two stages (substitution and augmentation) are considered “enhancement,” where technology replaces traditional tools. The last two stages (modification and redefinition) are defined as “transformation,” in which affordances of the technology enable experiences that were previously impossible without it (Puentedura, 2006; Terada, 2020). Even though an argument could be made that there is a progression from substitution to redefinition as degrees of classroom technology integration goes through the defined stages, it is better to consider the SAMR model as a “spectrum” (PowerSchool, 2021) or more like a “toolbox” (Terada, 2020) rather than a ladder or staircase because sometimes initial steps would be the best choice for a particular lesson. Terada (2020) further argued that effective technology integration is understanding the options and selecting the right strategy for the given lesson rather than “living at the top of the SAMR model.”

2.5 Why Is Technology Integration Important? As part of the Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology course, participating students were tasked to write a position paper describing why technology integration was important in their classroom. The following sample statement from

2.5  Why Is Technology Integration Important?

19

a Kindergarten teacher during the fall 2018 semester is a prevailing perception among most of her peers: Technology integration in the classroom is important to help increase the engagement of students, prepare and give them skills as a 21st-century citizen, and to improve learning.

Responding to the same question, the following is a sample answer written by a scholar in the educational technology field: Promising examples of research studies examining the effectiveness of particular technology-­enhanced instructional strategies do exist, though their numbers are disappointingly small at present. (Harris, 2005, p.117).

Even though both reflections above acknowledge the importance of technology integration in instructional processes, the contrast is striking regarding the perceptions about the impact of technology in education. This disparity perhaps leads naturally into the earlier discussion of the “wicked problem” that varying contextual issues impact the outcome of technology integration and possibly limit providing an overall statement about the impact of technology integration in general. The following section addresses the seemingly straightforward question of why technology integration is essential in varying educational circumstances and settings. The section presents the impact of technology integration on (a) differentiated instruction, (b) student engagement and motivation, (c) academic achievement, and (d) twenty-first century skills.

2.5.1 Impact on Differentiated Instruction The founder of Khan Academy, Sal Khan, argued that when used correctly, technology can empower teachers to create personalized instruction, space for social and emotional learning, apply technology-based assessment, and reach more students in more places (Khan, 2015). Similarly, some other studies (see Edutopia, 2007; Windschitl & Sahl, 2002) addressed how technology integration can impact independent learning. These studies highlight that educators focus so much on planning and implementing a lesson that they often forget to allow students to find themselves and become independent individuals. Technology integration seems to make this task relatively easy to accomplish. Edutopia’s (2007) article highlights that through technology integration, students discover all sorts of technology functions as the learning process unfolds and become independent learners as they take responsibility for their learning outcomes. But perhaps in no other constellation of applications has this press toward the use of technology as a vehicle for personalization of instruction been more apparent than in addressing the unique needs of special needs students. Dils (1999) highlighted that technology integration helps diversify the learning activities in social studies and history by addressing the use of technology with general education students at the middle school level. Dils cited examples of

20

2  Technology Integration

learning activities including having students use technology to “increase voter turnout, construct presidential trivia websites, and engage in authentic station work” (p. 2). In addition, the author argued that the use of multimedia in teaching these subject areas could effectively reach “verbal, kinesthetic, and visual learners” (p. 1). Focusing on English language learners (ELLs), Brozek and Duckworth (2011) have highlighted the impact of technology integration on differentiated instruction, pointing out that ELLs benefit from the technology through using multimedia like pictures, graphics, and video to express themselves in another way as they transition to a second language. Supporting the argument put forward by those authors, Knutson (2018) also stressed the availability of multiple online tools and apps with built-in features that support ELLs, including but not limited to variable reading levels in various languages, translated versions of certain activities, and adapted websites such as Simple English Wikipedia. In particular cases, assistive technologies are needed to reach the full potential of special needs students. In the context of the U.S. education system, assistive technology refers in general to any type of assistive, adaptive, and rehabilitative device designed for students with disabilities and intends to improve their functional capabilities (U.S.  Department of Education, 2019). The purpose and use of assistive technology change according to the student’s type of need. Assistive technology devices can also be divided into several categories based on the amount of technology needed to utilize them, ranging from no-tech technologies such as wheelchairs for arranging alternative seating arrangements to high-tech assistive technologies like the Dynavox, which allows students more control over their communication with others (Bouck, 2017). Regardless of its mode, Bouck has argued that assistive technologies’ affordances are helpful for students with special needs. Agreeing with Bouck, Netherton and Deal (2006) added that assistive technology can equalize the learning potential of students with disabilities. Chapter 4 further discusses the impact of assistive technology in special education.

2.5.2 Impact on Student Engagement and Motivation Engaging students in the classroom is a challenge for teachers at any level. Referencing Gallup’s 2013 State of America’s Schools report, Wardlow (2016) pointed out that only little over half of the U.S. K-12 students (55%) are engaged in the learning process. The rest are either not engaged (28%) or actively disengaged (17%). The author argued that technology might have a role in increasing student engagement in the classroom. Literature provides multiple studies investigating the impact of technology integration on student motivation (e.g., Lynch, 2015; Prensky, 2005). In an earlier study, Prensky (2005) reflected on “what today’s learners demand” (p. 60), indicating that even the most effective traditional teacher in the world will not be able to capture most of their students’ attention the old way. Prensky continued to discuss those current students challenging us, their educators, to engage them with what they

2.5  Why Is Technology Integration Important?

21

engage with more—technology. Fast forward to 2015, where research finds the benefits of mobile technologies on student motivation. Lynch (2015) reported that two different studies that separately followed upper elementary and upper-middle school students found an increase in motivation to finish lessons where mobile devices are integrated than traditional textbooks and workbooks used (see Mareco, 2014; Nagel, 2013).

2.5.3 Impact on Academic Achievement The impact of technology integration on student achievement has been studied from the early years of computer-based instruction in U.S. schools. For example, Schacter (1999) published a report analyzing the five most extensive studies of educational technology and three other innovative smaller projects. The report highlighted that, in general, these studies present a positive gain in achievement on standardized tests when students have access to computer-assisted instruction. However, the report also pointed out that some of these studies were inconclusive when the instructional objectives were less clear, and the focus of the technology used was “diffuse.” With the advance in technology since the 1990s, the improvement in student achievement today could be even more significant given the increased availability of technology for students in U.S. schools, along with a plethora of mobile technologies, educational games, and various apps. Reporting from the Center for Applied Research in Educational Technology project, Smith and Throne (2007) highlighted that when the application supports instructional objectives, it provides opportunities for student collaboration. The authors further argued that learning technologies impact academic achievement in content areas, promote higher-order thinking, and ready students for the twenty-first century workforce. Around the same time, another study highlighted the benefits of technology integration for student achievement through “multi-user virtual environments” (MUVE). Neulight et al. (2007) reported that, in a science class, MUVE technology was effectively integrated to virtually present naturally occurring infectious diseases. The study discussed that the large scale afforded by the MUVE allowed for a more significant application and understanding of the topic than would have been possible in a traditional classroom simulation. The authors concluded that proper technology integration affects student learning. Recounting a longitudinal study conducted in Ohio, Lei and Zhao (2007) reported that technology effectively increases student academic achievement. However, the finding suggested that using technology without ensuring that technology integration is done well and is of the highest quality can damage students. The authors argued that “the quantity of technology used alone is not critical to student learning.” As the authors stated: “…when the quality of technology use is not ensured, more time on computers and other devices may cause more harm than benefit” (p. 284).

22

2  Technology Integration

Supporting the argument provided by Lei and Zhao (2007) above, Richtel (2011) provided a case where stagnated test scores were observed despite the Kyrene School District in Tempe, Arizona, having made a significant investment in educational technology. In this case, the district’s reading and math scores have stagnated, even though statewide scores have risen since the purchase in 2005. The study recognized that test scores could go up and down for many reasons, but there was little proof that investment in technology improves essential learning. The spokesperson for the research group who conducted the study commended the findings stating that “Rather than being a cure-all or silver bullet…Good teachers can make good use of computers, while bad teachers won’t, and they and their students could wind up becoming distracted by the technology.” A recent state-wide study conducted in Florida by Liu et al. (2017) summarized the literature concerning technology integration’s impact on academic achievement. The authors argued that multiple variables impact the outcome of technology integration, such as the teacher’s experience with technology, classroom technology access, and readily available technical support. The authors also pointed out that teachers’ frequent use of technology and confidence and competence were mediators for instructional technology use.

2.5.4 Implications for Twenty-First Century Skills In addition to educational applications, technology integration is pursued as a way to help students acquire essential “twenty-first century skills,” which became known as the “four Cs”: creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration (National Education Association, n.d.). These skills are more frequently highlighted now as the skill sets that separate individuals who are well prepared for the complex personal and professional life environments in the current time and those who are not. Kuntz (2012) argued that technological literacy is valuable; therefore, students should be equipped with such skillsets. For instance, accessing electronic resources and analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing them is now a critical aspect of workplaces. Therefore, students should have opportunities to gain these skills and be prepared for the future workforce. Expressing the importance of twenty-first century skills, Mallon and Bernsten (2015) highlighted that collaborative groups using technology-enhanced strategies for idea generation and brainstorming seem to experience more participation among the group members and less “social loafing” where a member would present if they would be working alone. Agreeing with the above discussions, Jackson (2013) highlighted that as much as we see technology as a teaching tool, we must also think of it as a resource that allows us complete access to the world. Jackson argued that those forward-thinking teachers integrate technology to promote teamwork and collaborative activities, preparing their students to engage with others around the globe. However, the author

2.6  Current Trends in the U.S. to Address Technology Integration

23

argued that installing such skills is challenging to acquire in a traditional learning environment where desks and lecture-oriented instruction isolate students. Focusing on the digital workforce and workplace of the future, Colbert et  al. (2016) explored how the increasing presence of technology influences the workforce and workplaces. The authors argued that future employers expect K-12 schools and higher education to prepare students with digital competencies because of how the workplaces now function. In conclusion in this particular section—why technology integration is essential, for many years, educators and policymakers have been looking for strategies to provide effective learning environments for students, increase their engagement and motivation, close the achievement gap among particular groups, and prepare them for the future workforce. In the context of the U.S. experience, using technology to support these types of educational interventions seems to bring mixed results (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014). If used effectively, technology can enhance students’ academic learning experiences and open up a whole new world of possibilities. However, it appears that multiple contextual issues impact the outcome of technology initiatives in education, such as access to technology, teacher preparation, confidence and competence, and technical support. The founder of Khan Academy, Sal Khan (2015), said it best: To be clear, people are the most important part of any classroom. If given the choice between a great teacher and the world’s most advanced education technology, I’d pick the teacher any day for my own children. Fortunately, we don’t have to choose between teachers and technology. Technology is best used when it empowers teachers and students to create personalized, accessible, creative learning experiences. We just have to be careful to view it as a means to this end, rather than an end unto itself.

2.6 Current Trends in the U.S. to Address Technology Integration Considering a broad historical context, current trends in the U.S. that address technology integration in K-12 education can be discussed under three critical junctions: initiatives in preservice teacher preparation programs, professional development in in-service teacher education, and revisions in national educational technology standards for students over the years.

2.6.1 Initiatives in Preservice Teacher Preparation Programs As K-12 schools in the U.S. acquired more sophisticated computer technologies in the early 1990s, the first reaction of preservice teacher preparation institutions was to add a required educational technology course to teacher certification programs to address technology integration in the teaching and learning process. Yet while a

24

2  Technology Integration

large proportion of the nation’s postsecondary teacher preparation programs require core course work in educational technology, a nationwide study in 1999 reported that 80 % of the teachers in the U.S. felt unprepared to effectively use technology in the classroom (U.S.  Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999). Around the same time, another national survey revealed that technology infrastructure in K-12 schools increased more quickly than the teacher preparation programs in their intended work of thoroughly preparing new teachers—including effective use of technologies in their professional practice (Moursung & Bielefeldt, 1999). The findings discussed above were a wake-up call for higher education institutions and policymakers across the U.S. As a result, the U.S. Department of Education launched the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) program to build the nation’s capacity with technology proficient educators. PT3 provided about $400 million in grants for 466 projects awarded from 1999 through 2001 (Rhine & Bailey, 2005). In addition, the program offered the education community the opportunity to explore and develop approaches to integrating technology into teacher preparation. An overarching theme among the PT3 projects was that teacher preparation institutions must improve technology integration in their programs to increase future teachers’ technological proficiency. This goal would ensure that instructional technology was integrated into the day-to-day teaching practice rather than confined to standalone technology courses. Three critical components were identified in this process: required core course work, effective faculty modeling, and technology-­ enhanced field experiences (Duran, 2000; Moursung & Bielefeldt, 1999). The PT3 projects offered varying responses to this undertaking, such as establishing learning communities, developing faculty support systems, and enhancing field experiences. The PT3 program has been the most significant U.S. initiative for preparing future teachers to address effective technology integration in the teaching and learning process (Rhine & Bailey, 2005). However, among the abundance of ideas recommended by PT3 research, one still seems to pertain to American preservice teacher preparation today: a comprehensive program is needed to prepare a technology-­ proficient teaching force, combining core coursework, faculty modeling, and technology-­enriched field experiences. Following the PT3 initiative, teacher preparation institutions in the U.S. primarily focused on implementing the ideas generated during the PT3 program (effective practices) rather than developing new integration methods. For instance, since the PT3 program, there have been no new federal initiatives on this scale addressing effective technology integration strategies in teacher certification programs. However, implementation grants, such as the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant Program funded by the U.S. Department of Education, have been available to stimulate simultaneous research in effective implementation practices (U. S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology, 2016). In addition, particularly since the beginning of the new millennium, a considerable momentum that science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) disciplines captured drew away from

2.6  Current Trends in the U.S. to Address Technology Integration

25

the national interest and investment in the U.S. from the technology integration preoccupation of the earlier 2000s (see Duran et al., 2016; Gunn, 2017).

2.6.2 Professional Development in In-service Teacher Education As with historical developments in preservice teacher preparation in the U.S., in-­ service teacher education in the realm of technology integration has evolved. Earlier efforts focused more on learning about technology than teaching with the technology (Moursung & Bielefeldt, 1999), resulting in a lack of essential skills to use technology effectively in the instructional process (Russell et  al., 2003; Schrum, 1999). Later studies suggested changing this course and focusing instead on helping teachers develop skills and knowledge specific to teaching with technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2009; Margerum-Leys & Marx, 2004). The structure of professional development offerings in the U.S. also evolved over the years. For example, the research highlighted very early that traditional “sit-and-­ get training sessions” or “one-time-only workshops” were not sufficient enough for teachers to gain the competence and confidence they needed to integrate technology into their classrooms effectively (Rodriguez & Knuth, 2000). Instead, deliberate, ongoing professional development initiatives linked to the instructional goals, designed with built-in evaluation, and supported with sufficient financial and technical support were essential for effective professional development in technology use (Duran et al., 2012). How can schools and districts provide effective professional development for in-service teachers as described above? Even though there is no single response to answer this question, one current trend in the U.S. suggests using technology integration “coaches.” These specific coaches generally have certified teachers who are well-versed in using technology effectively in specific content areas such as literacy, mathematics, science, etc. In addition, they guide their peers to use technology effectively for student learning and provide ongoing support for their colleagues and their students (Foltos, 2014; Gann, 2014; ISTE, 2011).

2.6.3 Revisions in Educational Technology Standards for Students Similar to the developments in preservice and in-service teacher education discussed above, educational technology standards in the U.S have evolved over the years. As a nonprofit organization, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) serves education community members interested in using educational technology in teaching and learning. The institution has been instrumental in

26

2  Technology Integration

developing standards for students and providing a framework for using technology in teaching and learning. The standards generally emphasize the knowledge and skills technology proficient students need to succeed in a connected, digital world. Targeting students in all K-12 grade levels, the standards are designed for teachers across the curriculum to spur the integration of these skills throughout a student’s academic experiences. The original standards were developed in 1998, revised for the first time in 2007, and changed again in 2016. As discussed in the latest version of the standards (ISTE, 2016), when the initial standards were developed, the primary focus was on how students should be using technology tools. When the standards were revised in 2007, this underlying assumption changed, emphasizing the importance of cognitive and learning skills, creativity, and innovation. However, basic technology skills were still the focal point of one standard. With the latest revisions in 2016, underlying assumptions had changed once again. ISTE (2016) argued that the focus is squarely on learning in the current standards, not tools. Aligned with this notion, the current standards list skills and attitudes expected of students, with targeted dispositions that include Empowered Learner, Digital Citizen, Knowledge Constructor, Innovative Designer, Computational Thinker, Creative Communicator, and Global Collaborator rather than addressing the educational uses of particular technologies.

2.7 Issues Related to Technology Integration The scholarly literature on educational technology highlights several issues related to technology integration, such as vision, access, time, assessment, and professional development. However, three conceptual issues that remain unsettled are perhaps the most important ones: “technocentrism,” “pedagogical dogmatism,” and technology integration as a “wicked problem”—all of which reflect the maturation of instructional technology in contemporary instruction in the U.S. and each of which receives some elaboration below.

2.7.1 Technocentrism Harris (2005) argued that the educational technology discussion demonstrates a fundamental confusion between technology integration (effective use of technology for purposes of teaching and learning) and technocentrism (embracing the next new gadget). Harris further suggested that educators must focus on best assisting student learning instead of seeking educational uses of particular technologies. She asserted that “the distinction is more than semantic, and its import may well point to one of two primary reasons why many—if not most—large-scale technology integration efforts are perceived to have failed” (p. 116). Reflecting on Harris’s arguments a

2.7  Issues Related to Technology Integration

27

decade later, Cuban (2015) indicated that many practitioners understand that technology integration is about learning. Yet, he pointed out, “those who buy and deploy new technologies—note that most teachers are seldom involved in such decisions— continue to seek “educational uses” for the electronic devices.” Thus, Cuban concluded that in such cases, technocentrism prevails regarding the ongoing work of technology integration into mainstream U.S. education.

2.7.2 Pedagogical Dogmatism Harris (2005) also argued a decided tilt toward using technology as a vehicle of educational reform—pedagogical dogmatism among academics and many educators. In this view, the author argued that effective technology integration only reflects this reformed vision of education—technology as a “Trojan horse” for educational reform. Harris further contended that educational technology leaders had advocated student-centered, authentic, and project-based applications of instructional technologies more than others. In such cases, she pointed out, roles assigned to teachers and students change dramatically, advocating “student-centered” and “teacher-facilitated” approaches. And Harris added that this purpose of technology integration reflects a “reformed vision of education.” Harris (2005) and later Cuban (2015) argued that these reform-driven efforts judge that some forms of technology integration are better than others. Cuban (2012) thus argued that those reformers who believe that technology-integrated lessons should put students at the center promote “right-minded” use of technology. On the other hand, teachers who use technology to improve their teacher-centered classes are “wrong-minded” from the perspective of those championing student-centered learning, Cuban continued. For Cuban, this “unacknowledged bias” about “good” teaching is “wrong-headed” because there is no one best way of teaching and learning.

2.7.3 Technology Integration as a Wicked Problem American academics and authorities Koehler and Mishra (2008) have described technology integration as a “wicked problem,” highlighting many contextual issues to consider when integrating technology into the instructional process. As Borko et al. (2009) maintained, the fast growth of educational technologies and the complexity of classroom life boost the possible “transformative power” of instructional technologies and the challenges associated with integrating technology in instruction. Koehler and Mishra (2008) argue that when considering technology integration into the teaching and learning process, it is crucial to understand that most digital technologies are biased, including specific affordances and constraints. While some of these are built into the technologies, others are introduced by the contexts in

28

2  Technology Integration

which they are used (Borko et  al., 2009; Koehler & Mishra, 2008). The authors further argued that advanced technologies also present multiple applications that complicate their integration into instruction. Among others, they pointed out, is the issue of “instability” due to the rapid pace at which new technologies are developed and disseminated. This situation challenges educators where the knowledge and skills required to use emerging technologies are “never fixed.” As a result, the authors conclude, the “never-ending process” of learning new technologies in the classroom becomes ambiguous and frustrating. This complexity regarding technology integration defines the very wickedness of the problem. In sum, scholarly work in instructional technology has emphasized that recognizing what technology integration is—and what it isn’t—comprises a necessary beginning of the journey down the integration path—but only a beginning. Identifying the current trends and issues and understanding the technology integration process’s complexities are equally important goals. Creating a shared vision of technology integration and making educators aware of the answer comprise crucial next steps in the effective use of digital technologies in education from the standpoint of scholars in instructional technology. In the context of U.S. experiences over the last 20 years, much has been learned that a technocentric understanding of technology integration is insufficient and misguided. Educators, educational technology organizations, and policymakers agree that integrating technology is squarely on learning, not tools. The educational technology community is now more aware of technology integration’s contextual issues. The rapid growth of digital technologies and the complexities of classroom life are better understood. We have grasped that no single technological solution applies to every situation. We have concluded that effective teaching requires understanding and the application of appropriate, context-specific strategies (Koehler & Mishra, 2008). Thus, we now agree that constructive technology integration in instruction must consider content, pedagogy, and technology not in silos but rather within complex relationships (Chen & McPheeters, 2012).

2.8 Conclusion Reflections posted in the Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology course discussion by a high school science teacher during the fall 2018 semester captured critical arguments presented in this chapter: Looking back twenty years at where we’ve been, and seeing how my students (constant creators and consumers of content) teach me to navigate my learning management systems, use social media in educational ways- looking forward to how technology will continue to integrate into education is exciting! The line “The future lines of development are literally inconceivable” (Burbules & Callister, 2000, p.5) really stands out. There have been, and continue to be, so many incredible innovations (VR, AI, Google Glass, etc.) that it’s hard to cast a vision to the future. My hope is that we are thoughtful and deliberate in our tech[nology] integration to avoid some previous mistakes that we’ve seen in the technology integration of the past 20 years as we reinvent the classroom for our future learners.

2.8 Conclusion

29

First, the above comment presents a special recognition that student and teacher roles have changed in the past 20 years and perhaps will continue to change. Second, it highlights a recognition and excitement about continuing integration of emerging technologies in education. Third and finally, it cautions us not to repeat the same mistakes we made in the past. Defining technology integration is a crucial first step toward using learning technologies effectively in education. In this direction, recognizing the evolution of the ISTE Standards for Students (ISTE, 2016) over the years provides a valuable perspective: 1998 emphasizing “learning to use technology”; 2007 highlighting “using technology to learn,” and 2016 with its thrust toward “transformative learning with technology.” The changes reflected in this arc indicate that in the context of U.S. experiences, a primary focus for technology integration remains mainly upon learning, not tools. Equally important is recognition of the complexities of the technology integration process. For example, in addressing the TPACK framework, Mishra and Koehler (2006) described that effective technology integration requires interplay between and among content, pedagogy, and technology and an understanding of contextual issues surrounding instructional decision-making. Similarly, the SAMR model highlighted varying degrees of technology integration in the classroom— substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition—and urged educators to select the right strategies for technology integration (Puentedura, 2006). In short, TPACK and SAMR provide conceptual frameworks on when, how, and why to use technology in the classroom. Creating an effective learning environment for students is the primary purpose of any educational institution. In time, numerous strategies have been initiated and tested. Using technology to support these educational interventions in the U.S. seems to have brought mixed results (Darling-Hammond et  al., 2014). Evidence shows that learning technologies can enhance students’ educational learning experiences when used effectively. However, the literature also supports the conclusion that multiple contextual issues continue to impact the outcome of technology initiatives in U.S. education, such as access to technology, teacher preparation, technical support, or lack thereof. As Lynch (2016) pointed out, “technology is an experience…each major new development leads to new experiences and unchartered territory.” Educators would prefer seeing research-based evidence that demonstrates the impact of learning technologies in the classroom. Yet, in the context of the U.S. experience, there seems to be an urgency to push technology into the classroom without validating its value. The following paragraph captures what might be dubbed “the never-ending dilemma of learning technologies in education”: In 1997, a science and technology committee assembled by President Clinton issued an urgent call about the need to equip schools with technology. If such spending was not increased by billions of dollars, American competitiveness could suffer…While acknowledging that the research on technology’s impact was inadequate, the committee urged schools to adopt it anyhow. The report’s final sentence read: “The panel does not, however,

30

2  Technology Integration recommend that the deployment of technology within America’s schools be deferred pending the completion of such research. (Richtel, 2011)

In sum, this chapter highlighted two significant concepts concerning technology use in education. First, technology integration alone does not guarantee effective instruction, and second, there is no replacement for good teaching. Educators must focus on assisting students’ learning rather than seeking instructional uses for particular technologies. Integrating technology is, critically, not about technology but learning. Education stakeholders should consider these critical viewpoints in their policy and practice decisions.

References Blair, N. (2012). Technology integration for the new 21st century learner. https://www.naesp.org/ principal-­januaryfebruary-­2012-­technology/technology-­integration-­new-­21st-­century-­learner. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Liston, D. (2009). Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of technology and teacher learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 3–7. Bouck, E.  C. (2017). Assistive technology. SAGE. https://books.google.com/books/about/ Assistive_Technology.html?id=fpgECwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_ button#v=onepage&q&f=false. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Brozek, E., & Duckworth, D. (2011). Supporting English language learners through technology. Educator’s Voice, IV, 10–15. Burbules, N. C., & Callister, T. A. (2000). Watch it: The risks and promises of information technologies for education. Taylor & Francis. Chen, I.  L., & McPheeters, D. (2012). Cases on educational technology integration in urban schools. IGI Global. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292452339_The_pathway_to_ Nevada%27s_future_A_case_of_statewide_technology_integration_and_professional_development. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Colbert, A., Yee, N., & George, G. (2016). The digital workforce and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 731–739. Cuban, L. (2012). As teacher use of new technologies has spread, have most teachers changed how they teach? https://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/teacher-­use-­new-­technologies-­has-­spread-­have-­ most-­teachers-­changed-­how-­they-­teach. Accessed 3 Sept 2019. Cuban, L. (2015). Does integrating computers into lessons mean that teaching has changed? https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2015/10/20/does-­integrating-­computers-­into-­lessons-­mean-­ that-­teaching-­has-­changed. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Darling-Hammond, L.  Zielezinski, M.  B., & Goldman, S. (2014). Using technology to support at-risk students’ learning. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/scope-­pub-­using-­ technology-­report.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Dias, L. (1999). Integrating technology. Learning & Leading with Technology, 27(3), 10–13. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.469.1189&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Dils, K. (1999). The use of technology to reach the various learning styles of middle school history and social studies students. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-­idx/use-­of-­ technology-­to-­reach-­the-­various-­learning-­styles.pdf?c=jahc;idno=3310410.0002.301;format= pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Duran, M. (2000). Examination of technology integration into an elementary teacher education program: One university’s experience. Ph.D. thesis, Ohio University.

References

31

Duran, M., Brunvand, S., Ellsworth, J., & Şendağ, S. (2012). Impact of research-based professional development: Investigation of in-service teacher learning and practice in wiki integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(4), 313–334. Duran, M., Hoft, M., Medjahed, B., Lawson, D. B., & Orady, E. A. (Eds.). (2016). STEM learning: IT integration and collaborative strategies. Springer International Publishing. Earle, R.S. (2002). The integration of instructional technology into public education: Promises and challenges. ET Magazine, 42(1), 5–13. http://bookstoread.com/etp/earle.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Edutopia. (2007). Why do we need technology integration? https://www.edutopia.org/technology-­ integration-­guide-­importance. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Foltos, L. (2014). Put me in, coach! I’m ready to teach with technology. https://www.iste.org/ explore/articleDetail?articleid=28&category=ISTE-­Standards-­in-­Action&article=Put+me+ in%2c+coach!+I%E2%80%99m+ready+to+teach+with+technology. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Gann, K. (2014). ISTE standards for coaches 2: Model effective tech integration. https://www. iste.org/explore/articleDetail?articleid=234&category=Set-­the-­standard&article=. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Gunn, J. (2017). The evolution of STEM and STEAM in the U.S. https://education.cu-­portland. edu/blog/classroom-­resources/evolution-­of-­stem-­and-­steam-­in-­the-­united-­states. Accessed 19 Sept 2019. Harris, J. (2005). Our agenda for technology integration: It’s time to choose. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 116–122. Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2014). The construct is in the eye of the beholder: School districts’ appropriations and reconceptualizations of TPACK. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp.  2519–2526). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Hertz, M. B. (2011). What does “technology integration” mean?” Edutopia. https://www.edutopia. org/blog/meaning-­tech-­integration-­elementary-­mary-­beth-­hertz. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. International Society for Technology in Education. (2011). ISTE standards for coaches. https:// www.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-­14_ISTE_Standards-­C_PDF.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for students. https:// www.iste.org/standards/for-­students. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Jackson, S. (2013). How technology can encourage student collaboration. https://www.commonsense.org/education/blog/how-­technology-­can-­encourage-­student-­collaboration. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Jonassen, D. H. (1995). Supporting communities of learners with technology: A vision for integrating technology in learning in schools. Educational Technology, 35(4), 60–62. https://eric. ed.gov/?id=EJ507039. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Khan, S. (2015). 4 ways technology can help empower teachers and students. Fastcompany. https://www.fastcompany.com/3044585/4-­ways-­technology-­can-­help-­empower-­teachers-­and-­ students. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Knutson, J. (2018). How to use technology to support ELLs in your classroom. Common sense education. https://www.commonsense.org/education/blog/how-­to-­use-­technology-­to-­support-­ ells-­in-­your-­classroom. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Koehler, M. (2012). TPACK explained. https://matt-­koehler.com/tpack2/tpack-­explained. Accessed 5 Jan 2022. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–29). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Koehler, M.  J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. Kuntz, B. (2012). Engage students by embracing technology. Education Update, 54(6). http:// www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/education-­u pdate/jun12/vol54/num06/Engage-­ Students-­by-­Embracing-­Technology.aspx. Accessed 18 Jan 2019.

32

2  Technology Integration

Lei, J., & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers & Education, 49, 284–296. Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2017). Explaining technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A multilevel path analysis model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 795–813. Lynch, M. (2015). Do mobile devices in the classroom really improve learning outcomes? http://theconversation.com/do-­mobile-­devices-­in-­the-­classroom-­really-­improve-­learning-­ outcomes-­38740. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Lynch, M. (2016). The dark side of educational technology. https://www.theedadvocate.org/dark-­ side-­educational-­technology. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Mareco, D. (2014). Study shows how students are using technology in the classroom. https://www. securedgenetworks.com/blog/Study-­Shows-­How-­Students-­are-­Using-­Technology-­in-­the-­ Classroom. Accessed 3 Sept 2019. Margerum-Leys, J., & Marx, R. W. (2004). The nature and sharing of teacher knowledge of technology in a student teacher/mentor teacher pair. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 421–437. Mallon, M., & Bernsten, S. (2015). Collaborative Learning Technologies. Tips and Trends. https:// acrl.ala.org/IS/wp-­content/uploads/2014/05/winter2015.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. http://one2oneheights.pbworks.com/f/MISHRA_PUNYA.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Morton, C. (1996). The modern land of Laputa: Where computers are used in education. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(6), 416–419. https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-­18084237/the-­ modern-­land-­of-­laputa-­where-­computers-­are-­used. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Moursung, D. & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/248450194_Will_New_Teachers_Be_Prepared_To_Teach_in_a_Digital_Age. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Nagel, D. (2013). Mobile study: Tablets make a difference in teaching and learning. The Journal. https://thejournal.com/articles/2013/11/20/mobile-­s tudy-­t ablets-­m ake-­a -­d ifference-­i n-­ teaching-­and-­learning.aspx. Accessed 3 Sept 2019. National Education Association. (n.d.). Preparing 21st century students for a global society: An educator’s guide to the “four Cs”. http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/A-­Guide-­to-­Four-­Cs.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Netherton, D.  L. & Deal, W.  F. (2006). Assistive technology in the classroom. The Technology Teacher. http://mhess1.pbworks.com/f/Assistive+Technology+in+the+Classroom+by+Nether ton.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Neulight, N., Kafai, Y., Kao, L., Foley, B., & Galas, C. (2007). Children’s participation in a virtual epidemic in the science classroom: Making connections to natural infectious diseases. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 47–58. PowerSchool. (2021). SAMR model: A practical guide for K-12 classroom technology integration. https://www.powerschool.com/resources/blog/samr-­model-­a-­practical-­guide-­for-­k-­12-­ classroom-­technology-­integration. Accessed 5 Feb 2022. Prensky, M. (2005). Engage me or enrage me: What today’s learners demand. Educause. https:// er.educause.edu/-­/media/files/article-­downloads/erm0553.pdf. Accessed 3 Sept 2019. Puentedura, R.  R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. http://hippasus.com/ resources/tte. Accessed 4 Jan 2022. Rhine, S., & Bailey, M. (2005). Integrated technologies, innovative learning: Insights from the PT3 program. ISTE Publications. Richtel, M. (2011). In classroom of future, stagnant scores. The Newyork Times. https://www. nytimes.com/2011/09/04/technology/technology-­in-­schools-­faces-­questions-­on-­value.html?_ r=1&emc=eta1. Accessed 18 Jan 2019.

References

33

Rodriguez, G., & Knuth, R. (2000). Critical issue: Providing professional development for effective technology use. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. http://rlong.pbworks. com/f/Critical+Issue+Professional+Development+Key.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Russell, M., Bebell, D., O’Dwyer, L., & O’Connor, K. (2003). Examining teacher technology use: Implications for preservice and in-service teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4), 297–310. Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Milken Exchange on Education Technology. http://www2.gsu. edu/~wwwche/Milken%20report.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Schad, M. L., Greene, M. D., & Jones, M. (2021). A review of theory, theoretical and conceptual frameworks in educational technology. International Journal on E-Learning, 20(2), 187–198. Schrum, L. (1999). Technology professional development for teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 83–90. Smith, G. E., & Throne, S. (2007). Differentiating instruction with technology in K-5 classrooms. International Society for Technology in Education. http://www.iste.org/images/excerpts/ diffk5-­excerpt.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Terada, Y. (2020). A powerful model for understanding good tech integration. https://www.edutopia.org/article/powerful-­model-­understanding-­good-­tech-­integration. Accessed 05 Jan 2022. University of Michigan-Dearborn. (n.d.). EDT 501–Research, trends, and issues in educational technology. Graduate catalog. http://catalog.umd.umich.edu/graduate/coursesaz/edt. Accessed 19 Aug 2022. U.S.  Department of Education. (2019). Definition. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 1401. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-­chapter-­33/subchapter-­i/1401. Accessed 8 June 2022. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. https://nces.ed.gov/ pubs99/1999080.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. U. S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Advancing educational technology in teacher preparation: Policy brief. https://tech.ed.gov/files/2016/12/Ed-­Tech-­in-­ Teacher-­Preparation-­Brief.pdf. Accessed 5 Sept 2019. U. S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 National education technology plan update. Accessed 5 Sept 2019. Wardlow, L. (2016). How technology can boost student engagement. https://www.pearsoned.com/ technology-­can-­boost-­student-­engagement. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Wikimedia Commons. (n.d.). File: The SMAR model.jpg. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:The_SAMR_Model.jpg. Accessed 28 Feb 2022. Windschitl, M., & Sahl, K. (2002). Tracing teachers’ use of technology in a laptop computer school: The interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics, and institutional culture. American Educational Research Journal, 39(1), 165–205.

Chapter 3

Emerging Technologies in K-12 Education

New technologies, old challenges.

3.1 Introduction Various digital technology resources are available for educational use, such as computers, mobile devices, educational apps, the world wide web, and broadband Internet. The literature includes multiple terms describing digital technology use in education, such as learning technologies, instructional technology, educational technology, and information communication technology (ICT). The present chapter uses these terms interchangeably, describing digital technology applications to enhance teaching, learning, and “creative inquiry.” Multiple digital technology resources are currently developing in their educational use, such as learning analytics, virtual reality (VR), and artificial intelligence (AI). The literature refers to these tools as “emerging technologies.” These technologies’ practical applications are underutilized in instructional settings (Freeman et al., 2017). However, the authors noted that emerging technologies have the potential for significant educational impact within 5–10  years. Therefore, the present chapter aims to bring the critical developments in emerging technology to the reader’s attention. First, the chapter discusses emerging technologies’ K-12 applications: STEAM learning, coding, makerspaces, robotics, learning analytics, virtual reality, artificial intelligence, and the internet of things. Next, the chapter addresses current trends affecting decision-making in emerging technologies, classifying them as “short-­ term,” “mid-term,” and “long-term” trends, as identified by Freeman et al. (2017). Subsequent, issues related to emerging technology integration are addressed in the chapter elaborating on what Freeman et  al. noted: “solvable” issues, “difficult” issues, and “wicked” issues. Finally, the chapter describes the most recent stage of the critical issues discussed and the implications for policy and practices these issues introduce. Three primary resources guided the discussions in this chapter. First, an extensive literature review pursues the chapter’s central focus—emerging technologies in K-12 education—and includes studies published over the last two decades and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Duran, Learning Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18111-5_3

35

36

3  Emerging Technologies in K-12 Education

accessed via multiple databases, journals, and available web resources. Second, also informing the chapter’s discussion are the author’s reflections on over 20 years of professional teaching experience focused on educational technology and conducted at a comprehensive U.S. research university. Significant published scholarship regarding technology integration in teacher preparation programs and trends and issues pertinent to educational technology further augments this expert perspective. And third, the observations and viewpoints of participants in a graduate-level online course called Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology enrich the chapter’s discussion. The course acquaints the students with research, trends, and issues facing education in the digital era, addressing a wide range of technological developments and investigating key topics concerning technology in the contemporary classroom (University of Michigan-Dearborn, n.d.). The author regularly teaches and collects data from this course, informing critical developments in K-12 emerging technologies from the vital viewpoint of practicing teachers, extending to various changes affecting their schools and work.

3.2 Purpose of the Chapter Emerging technologies appear likely to have a substantial educational impact and directly influence most U.S. K-12 schools in 5–10 years. Therefore, this chapter first discusses the emerging learning technologies on the horizon. Making educators aware of these critical developments is the first step to considering technology planning and decisions in the coming years. It is also vital for educators to understand current trends and issues surrounding emerging technologies. Thus, later, the chapter emphasizes current trends and issues in emerging technologies, assisting educators in making informed decisions. This way, educators should better understand the potential and challenges of the technologies offered.

3.3 Important Developments in Emerging Technologies As part of the class discussion about emerging technologies in education during the fall 2018 semester, one of the students in the Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology course posted the following commentary: I’ve found myself wondering about the direction in which education is heading. It was encouraging for me as an educator in that I will teach coding to my 3-5 graders, STEM design challenges for 3-8, and robotics using LEGO-NXT for 6-8 electives since these are the beginnings of the shifts this [NMC Horizon] report discussed. However, this is specifically my job and not necessarily that of all educators in my building. While I would say it’s a good start, we will have to continually work toward making this more realistic in all classes. As I’ve mentioned before, my school is in the midst of the construction of a 21st-­ century school that is set to employ flexible grouping and student-centered learning. While I am glad to see we’re on course with this, it is certainly not going to be easy, particularly

3.3  Important Developments in Emerging Technologies

37

with regards to teachers relinquishing their control as the “sage of the stage.” It will require some discomfort and compromise.

The sample passage above summarizes the feeling of many educators concerning emerging technologies in education and highlights multiple discussion points. First, it presents a particular sense of the unknown, then admiration, and finally, challenges associated with the anticipated shift. The following sections mimic the above short extract from a class discussion—excitement and challenges related to significant developments in emerging technologies. For over a decade, EDUCAUSE, a nonprofit educational organization based in the U.S., has partnered with the New Media Consortium (NMC) to publish the annual Horizon Report K-12 Edition series. The annual reports highlight the critical developments in educational technology, including trends and issues on the 5-year horizon for K-12 schools. Extending the sample class discussion presented above and in line with the latest Horizon Report’s structure (Freeman et al., 2017), the following discussion in this section highlights emerging technologies in U.S.  K-12 schools.

3.3.1 STEAM Learning In the U.S., science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields are widely considered vehicles that boost innovation and strengthen the nation’s economy. Consequently, K-12 schools have increasingly emphasized STEM learning in the last two decades. For instance, Duran et al. (2016) argued that STEM-integrated instructional activities that promote successful learning in K-12 education are no longer discussed but becoming standard practice. Freeman et al. (2017) pointed out that in recent years educators are presenting a solid voice to integrate the arts, design, and humanities into STEM curricula as an essential component to building critical and creative skills. This argument is increasingly well-received by educational decision-makers and promoted the STEAM learning movement, where the A stands for “art+.” Advocates of the STEAM approach to learning argue that “STEAM takes STEM to the next level” (Riley, 2018), allowing students to connect their STEM learning areas with creativity and an outlook on design, which are essential ingredients for innovation (Gunn, 2017). STEAM’s mission has mobilized multiple organizations in the U.S. For example, LevelUp Village (n.d.) offers STEAM courses for K-12 students through school, after-school, and summer activities. The Institute for Arts Integration and STEAM (n.d.) is another example, providing online professional development for teachers and school administrators about arts-integrated learning strategies. Weyer and Dell’Erba (2022) also reported that the Education Commission of the States, in collaboration with the Arts Education Partnership, focuses on STEAM education. The authors also noted that multiple states, such as Nevada, Georgia, and Ohio, have already begun implementing STEAM education and are showing progress. Freeman

38

3  Emerging Technologies in K-12 Education

et al. (2017) recommended that careful preparation and fostered collaborations with post-secondary and industry partners would develop successful STEAM programs.

3.3.2 Coding Freeman et al. (2017) summarized a common belief among many U.S. educators that coding helps students understand how digital technologies work, improves their computational thinking skills, and prepares them for the digital workplace. Multiple studies also report that computer science is a driving force for growth and innovation in the U.S. economy (Bienkowski & Snow, 2013; code.org n.d.). As highlighted in the reports mentioned above, computing jobs are the number one source of all new income in America. Over 50% of all projected new jobs in STEM fields, making computer science one of the most needed college degrees. Freeman et al. also noted that coding literacy is becoming increasingly crucial in most industries. For example, the author said that fields such as data analysis, marketing, and web design, among others, require coding skills. Coding literacy could help students build transferable skills such as creativity and innovation (Freeman et  al. 2017). The authors also pointed out that coding improves problem-solving skills, fosters collaboration, and motivates students to learn about gaming, robotics, and animation. To address the need, an increasing number of educational leaders and policymakers support the integration of coding into K–12 curricula, emphasizing the need to prepare students early. For example, Freeman et al. reported that several nations, such as England, Finland, and South Korea, formally integrate coding classes into their curriculum.

3.3.3 Makerspace Makerspaces are workshop environments where students get hands-on learning opportunities and create projects of their own choice, often involving emerging technologies such as 3D printers, laser cutters, and animation software. At makerspaces, students focus on self-directed learning and are encouraged to develop higher-order skills such as problem-solving and creativity. As Fleming and Krakower (2016) articulated, makerspaces are places where students pursue their interests, learn to use tools and materials, both physical and digital, and develop innovative projects. Freeman et al. (2017) anticipate that school and district technology plans have already adopted makerspaces and will continue to embrace them. Chap. 10, Section 10.3.1, provides more information about school technology plans. Fleming and Krakower (2016) also argued that makerspaces can provide inclusive learning experiences to students at all educational levels, including special needs and ESL students. These students come to the classroom with different perspectives and abilities, and makerspaces comprise outlets that alleviate barriers to

3.3  Important Developments in Emerging Technologies

39

entry. Regardless of their abilities, students can take charge and participate in these spaces without prior skills or knowledge. Lynch (2017a) noted an additional benefit of makerspaces, stressing that integrating a makerspace mentality into classrooms forces students to recognize that opportunities for improvement and success regularly accompany failure. The author argued that “schools teach a lot of valuable lessons, but one thing students need to learn (and usually don’t learn in school) is that failure is not something to fear. Through failure, some of the best minds in the world have learned a better way to do something.” In the last 10  years, makerspaces have grown exponentially, and, as of 2016, about 1400 makerspaces were active or planned around the world, 14 times more than a decade ago, of which about 35% are in the U.S. (Freeman et  al. 2017). However, the authors added that girls and students of color were not fully represented in the K–12 maker movement compared to their counterparts.

3.3.4 Robotics Robotics, which includes automated machines’ design, development, and application, comprises an interdisciplinary branch of engineering and science that promotes STEM subjects and fosters hands-on learning. Freeman et al. (2017) expect that, like makerspaces, school and district technology plans have already incorporated robotics and will continue to contain them. And indeed, in the U.S, schools are introducing robotics to students–often, for example, during after-school programs– considering that teaching robotics to students from an early age has value in developing twenty-first-century skills that learners can apply to many fields later on. Other benefits include learning problem solving, resilience, patience, teamwork, and assessing risks (Vukovic 2016). Robotics competitions, which allow students to apply their robotics skills to develop solutions to defined tasks, are great examples of this direction, as it provides students with a variety of opportunities to explore STEM and apply skills relevant to the contemporary digital and popular landscape of the twenty-first century (Conley 2017). Some teachers have also started using robotics applications to promote student engagement and enhance classroom instruction. For instance, as Fig. 3.1 presents below, students at a local elementary school in South Dacoda use their Dash robot to learn about place value in mathematics (Clement 2020).

3.3.5 Learning Analytics Analytic technologies include multiple tools and applications to discover, interpret, and communicate meaningful patterns in data and use those patterns in decision-­ making. The focus of using data to improve educators’ ability to measure learning is not new to schools and school districts in the U.S. For instance, schools currently

40

3  Emerging Technologies in K-12 Education

Fig. 3.1  Second-graders at Madison Elementary School using coding skills and a Dash robot (“Reproduced by permission of the publisher, madisondailyleader.com”)

use student information systems (SIS) and learning management systems (LMS) to evaluate students’ academic readiness, progress, achievement, and skills acquisition. Such measurement tools allow administrators and educators to make informed decisions about students and their educational progress. Learning analytics is another way of collecting, analyzing, and reporting data about students and their context. When paired with formative assessment and used effectively, learning analytics can help understand student progress toward learning. Freeman et al. (2017) predict that school and district technology plans will continually adapt learning analytics in the coming years. Long and Mott (2017) anticipated that the next generation SIS and LMS would include real-time learner analytics dashboards for students, teachers, administrators, and parents. The authors argued that this new feature would allow alternative pathways for immediate feedback, individualized learning programs, and automated guidance, thus improving the teaching and learning process. Khan Academy is a prominent example of using learning analytics in instructional settings. Walsh (2012) noted that as students use the tutorial videos offered through Khan Academy, and as data is collected and made available for students and teachers via graphic reports and other interactive visual tools, users are compelled to review their learning progress and make necessary adjustments in improving their understandings. As they progress and enhance, learning analytics technologies support teachers in their instructional decision-making and enable them to consider how they might, in turn, better support learners.

3.3  Important Developments in Emerging Technologies

41

3.3.6 Virtual Reality (VR) Virtual reality, a computer-generated experience that incorporates auditory and visual feedback in a digitally simulated environment, has been used in medical and military fields. Schools in the U.S. are also increasingly interested in pursuing virtual reality for educational purposes. Freeman et al. (2017) anticipated that school and district technology plans would continually adopt virtual reality, similar to learning analytics. Stone (2016) has argued that the main feature of virtual reality experience is that we can be somewhere without “being there” or “handle objects without touching them.” The author emphasized that some of the applications of virtual reality in instruction could include visiting locations that are not easy to reach (geography and culture); observing abstract concepts such as how hurricanes are formed or blood moves through veins (science), and listening to concerts or viewing art pieces in context (the arts). Boyland (2020) reported some practical classroom experiences where students used virtual reality to travel through space with their peers, learning and answering questions about the planets as they did so. In another example, the author reported that students learning English met virtually and discussed various topics. Finally, concurring with previous arguments, Reynalds (2017) has noted that virtual reality technologies provide individual experiences and allow simultaneous group experiences. For instance, the author noted, enabling students to access the same virtual reality experiences from different locations, thus allowing interaction and collaboration on projects and activities through shared learning environments that are not otherwise feasible. Given the possibilities cited above, some anticipate that virtual reality applications will be a “game-changer,” and recent research has yielded promising results. For instance, Merchant et al. (2014) conducted a meta-analysis synthesizing results on the overall effectiveness and impact of VR technology-based instruction and concluded that such instructional strategies effectively improved learning outcomes in K-12 education. Another recent study found a significant difference in the virtual field trip experience through immersive virtual reality over two-dimensional video applications (Makransky and Mayer 2022). In addition, the authors noted increased enjoyment, interest, and retention during a climate change intervention at the middle school level. However, others urge educators to “strike a balance between innovation and safety,” addressing that innovative technologies like VR come with privacy issues; therefore, educators should leverage these technologies to facilitate effective instruction while prioritizing student safety (Boyland, 2020).

42

3  Emerging Technologies in K-12 Education

3.3.7 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Computer science deals with the development of machine intelligence that approaches specific mental capacities of humans—thus dubbed artificial intelligence (AI). Examples include speech recognition, learning, planning, and problem-­ solving. AI is currently used in multiple industries such as health care and financial services. For example, virtual assistants such as Apple Siri, Amazon Alexa, Microsoft’s Cortana, and Google Home are already in our daily lives. Freeman et al. (2017) predicted that U.S. school and district technology plans would adopt artificial intelligence in 4–5 years. Likewise, a recent survey among K-12 educational technology leaders in the U.S. revealed that more than half of the participants (55%) perceived that AI would considerably impact instruction within the next 5 years, so long as privacy issues were addressed (Schaffhauser 2020a). While full implications for students’ social development, intellectual, and emotional enhancement are still in investigation, some of the promising examples of AI use in education include virtual assistance facilitating classroom discussions (Luckin et al. 2016), assessing the learning process (Roepke 2017), and handling some administrative tasks such as grading (Lynch 2017b). Schaffhauser (2020b) further argued that experts expect promising results from AI in two particular areas, social learning and assessment. For example, in a recent study conducted with early childhood education students, Xu et  al. (2021) found that AI-powered conversational agents like smart speakers enhanced children’s story understanding, similar to the support experienced with adult assistance. Schaffhauser (2018, 2020a) cautioned that AI will impact human effectiveness but comes with issues such as personal “autonomy, agency and capabilities.” The author further argued that some others are not entirely convinced of the efficacy of AI in education, contending that most AI use in education by the year 2030 “will be of middling quality.” For instance, Educationweek (2020) reported that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, K-12 education experienced a rapid technology use surge, but AI applications remained minimal. As Schaffhauser (2020b) put it best, “the biggest uses for artificial intelligence in education have not been invented yet.”

3.3.8 The Internet of Things (IoT) IoT is a system of interconnected digital devices that transfer data without human interference. Many IoT applications are now present through products like smartwatches, smart cars, and smart homes. Ravipati (2017) reported that IoT technologies are expected to cover more than half the connected device sphere in the next 2–3 years. In addition, Freeman et al. (2017) said school and district technology plans are likely to adopt IoT technologies widely within 4–5 years. Experts in learning technologies predict that schools will initially adopt IoT technologies to change some of their traditional practices. For instance, Brown

3.4  Current Trends Affecting Decision-Making in Emerging Technologies

43

(2017) reported that “smart schools” use IoT to track school buses, conduct automatic attendance, and check student ID cards, among other applications. The author quoted one of the leading experts in the field and wrote that “the big potential for IoT is making the physical digital.” But eventually, Brown stressed, IoT applications are expected to involve advanced instructional features such as monitoring student interaction and engagement. For instance, in an IoT project that Intel (n.d.) shared, data from students’ transparent soil systems was posted online and made available for downloading and viewing by other students. Then students learned how to use Node-RED to publish their data to IBM Watson IoT and create data visualizations. Yet, Brown (2017) noted that in the absence of leeway for exceptions built into policies regarding this type of change, security and personal privacy issues would arise as the potential IoT applications get adopted in schools.

3.4 Current Trends Affecting Decision-Making in Emerging Technologies Freeman et al. (2017) point out multiple “movement-related” trends that have been affecting decision-making in technology planning and will likely continue to be important in the coming years, classifying these trends as “short-term,” “mid-term,” and “long-term.” The following section summarizes each.

3.4.1 Short-Term Trends The “rise of STEAM learning” and “coding as literacy” are two main short-term trends that will impact emerging technology integration in K–12 education in the coming years (Freeman et al. 2017, p.11). However, despite significant funding for STEM programs, educators are still concerned that the inequities in STEM education persist (see Duran et al. 2016; Laorenza et al. 2012; Reimann, 2020; Sandler et al. 2012). The authors highlighted that African Americans, Hispanics, women and girls, students in poverty, and English language learners are underrepresented and underserved in STEM. Therefore, Freeman et al. highlighted that the advancement of this trend necessitates deep consideration of diversity in STEM and coding fields on the part of education leaders so that minority groups can similarly benefit.

44

3  Emerging Technologies in K-12 Education

3.4.2 Mid-Term Trends Freeman et al. (2017) highlighted that “growing focus on measuring learning” and “redesigning learning spaces” are two main mid-term trends that will impact emerging technology integration in K–12 education for the next 3–5 years (p. 10, 11). For example, the authors argued learning analytics has been a breakthrough in measuring student learning in K-12 education. In addition, Madda (2016) has noted that assessment tools like PearDuck, EdPuzzle, and Think Through Math capture how students learn in real-time. Another trend example involves better detecting and tracking soft skill development such as creativity and collaboration. Emerging technologies are forcing educators to rethink where learning happens. Traditional learning environments mainly include physical spaces such as schools and classrooms where knowledge transfer occurs mainly through teacher-student interaction. However, Freeman et  al. (2017) argued that as curricular content becomes more “dynamic,” “flexible,” and “accessible” to a large number of students, educators are revisiting basic assumptions about content delivery and learning spaces. Makerspaces and online learning environments are prominent examples in this direction.

3.4.3 Long-Term Trends Two main long-term trends that will impact emerging technology integration in K–12 education for the next five or more years, according to Freeman et al. (2017), include the “advancing culture of innovation” and “deeper learning approaches” (p. 10). First, schools are exploring a paradigm shift in which students learn critical skill sets to become creative and innovative. In other words, schools focus on facilitating activities such as project-based learning, collaboration, creativity, and entrepreneurship, where the next Steve Jobs would emerge. “[E]very big idea has to start somewhere,” as Freeman et al. have maintained (2017, p. 12). Focusing on school culture—creating what might be called a climate of innovation—is a vital component of this long-term trend. In addition, growing interest in deeper learning approaches for K-12 education is apparent in the U.S. Freeman et al. (2017) argued that deeper learning approaches where students engage in “critical thinking, problem-solving, collaboration, and self-directed learning” (p. 10). The author added that equipping students with these higher-order thinking skills requires a shift from passive learning strategies to active learning methods such as “problem-based learning, project-based learning, inquiry-­ based learning, and challenge-based learning” (p. 10). According to Freeman et al., this is where learning technologies play a significant role in supporting problem-­ solving and developing solutions.

3.5  Issues Related to Emerging Technologies

45

3.5 Issues Related to Emerging Technologies Multiple challenges will be very likely to impede the adoption of emerging technologies–issues that Freeman et al. (2017) classified as “solvable” issues, “difficult” issues, and “wicked” issues. The following section describes these issues as defined by the authors. For Freeman et al. (2017), solvable issues include how to solve such as “authentic learning experiences” and “improving digital literacy” (p. 3). The authors argued that preparing students for real-work environments requires authentic learning experiences throughout their school years. Although these learning opportunities are scattered in K-12 schools, educators try bridging the gap between theory and practical applications, establishing partnerships with local organizations and industries through internships, co-ops, and community-based projects. Similarly, digital literacy is another challenge that schools face due to the ever-growing technology environment around students (Freeman et  al., 2017). Yet, there is still significant work to do regarding teaching students about their digital rights and responsibilities as they engage in blended and online learning. In addition, school leaders are sometimes challenged to obtain institution-wide buy-ins and support all stakeholders in developing digital competencies. Freeman et al. (2017) included “rethinking the roles of teachers” and “teaching computational thinking” (p. 24, 25) in the area of difficult issues–problems that are relatively easy to recognize and understand as such but for which solutions are ambiguous. The authors described that teachers are increasingly expected to use learning technologies in their daily practice and adopt their role as they progress into new roles and responsibilities. Teachers’ transition to their new roles is more progressive where supportive and collaborative professional learning circles are established (Freeman et al., 2017). For others, this is still a challenging task. In addition, preservice teacher preparation programs vary in their responses to prepare future teachers for the new roles. Freeman et al. (2017) argued that teachers are challenged with new curriculum areas such as teaching computational thinking and adopting new roles. The authors highlight that as educators still try to define computational thinking and prepare relevant curricular activities, pre-service and in-service teacher education struggle to receive adequate training. Yet policymakers are increasingly supporting initiatives to integrate computational thinking in K-12 education due to the anticipated future workforce in the computer science area. In the final category of issues related to emerging technologies, “wicked challenges,” Freeman et  al. (2017) included “the achievement gap” and “sustaining innovation through leadership changes” (p. 25). The authors argued that these challenges are complex and not easy to address. For example, the achievement gap in academic performance between student groups with varying socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, or gender still exists in the U.S. education system. Freeman et al. (2017) further argued that even though policymakers are implementing initiatives to address disparities among these groups, contributing factors such as geographic

46

3  Emerging Technologies in K-12 Education

inequities, disparate access to educational opportunities, and tax-based funding structure for schools are still challenging close the gap. Implementing emerging technology-enhanced strategies as these disparities would be problematic for some and perhaps another factor in widening the gap. According to Freeman et  al. (2017), frequent leadership vacancies and transitions in educational institutions present another wicked challenge for emerging technology implementations. They argue that the effective implementation of innovative technologies requires investment in multiple areas. Turnover in the leadership of educational institutions can result in project delays and hinder important initiatives. In most cases, sustaining innovation through leadership changes becomes challenging.

3.6 Conclusion In conclusion, many emerging technologies discussed above present foreseeable applications in K-12 education and bring policy and practice implications to the education stakeholders’ attention. For instance, learning analytics, virtual, augmented, and artificial intelligence have the potential to profoundly impact teaching and learning and student engagement in beneficial ways. Moreover, the benefit of continuously stimulating young minds to achieve educational outcomes is undeniable, and emerging technology can act as a conduit to maintain the interest and excitement of students. Yet, bringing technology into schools is only step one–using them effectively requires far more than purchasing the equipment. Without proper curricular changes and professional development, many educators would not understand emerging technologies‘potential challenges. For example, Elliot Soloway, a prominent U.S. expert, argued that technology had benefited multiple industries like retail and entertainment because these areas redesigned themselves to benefit from technology… but integrating technology into an existing curriculum will not bring similar results (Tynan-Wood 2016). As educators adopt emerging technologies, they should be thoughtful and deliberate in their technology integration initiatives to avoid past mistakes, particularly technocentrism and pedagogical dogmatism, as discussed in Chap. 2.

References Bienkowski, M., & Snow, E. (2013). Building evidence and building practice in computer science education. White paper presented at the 2014 CS Education Research Summit. https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/317644211_Building_evidence_and_building_practice_in_Computer_Science_education_White_paper_presented_at_the_2014_CS_education_ research_summit. Accessed 18 Jan 2019.

References

47

Boyland, J. (2020). ISTE live: Smart technology offers a new and fun approach to language learning. https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2020/12/iste20-­live-­smart-­technology-­offers-­ new-­and-­fun-­approach-­language-­learning. Accessed 4 Feb 2022. Brown, J. L. (2017). How will the internet of things impact education? https://edtechmagazine. com/k12/article/2017/03/how-­will-­internet-­things-­impact-­education. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Clement, C. 2020. Bruna’s students use their dashes to learn about math. Madison Daily Leader. https://www.madisondailyleader.com/news/local/article_705a0ada-­0748-­11eb-­b7c6-­ a74ca461a9e1.html. Accessed 2 Feb 2020. Code.org. (n.d.). Promote computer science. https://code.org/promote. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Conley, C. (2017). Robotics competition allows students to apply STEM skills. https://www.govtech.com/education/k-­12/Robotics-­Competition-­Allows-­Students-­to-­Apply-­STEM-­Skills. html. Accessed 9 Sept 2019. Duran, M., Hoft, M., Medjahed, B., Lawson, D. B., & Orady, E. A. (Eds.). (2016). STEM learning: IT integration and collaborative strategies. Springer. EducationWeek. (2020). Tech use surge under Covid-19: Where does artificial intelligence fit in? https://www.edweek.org/technology/tech-­use-­surges-­under-­covid-­19-­where-­does-­ artificial-­i ntelligence-­fit-­i n?cmp=eml-­e b-­s r-­A I-­0 5202020&M=59579039&U=&UUID =15d128416201437fa01f49e3dc3058e5. Accessed 5 Feb 2022. Fleming, L., & Krakower, B. (2016). Makerspaces and equal access to learning. Edutopia. https:// www.edutopia.org/blog/makerspaces-­equal-­access-­to-­learning-­laura-­fleming-­billy-­Krakower. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., & Hall Giesinger, C. 2017. NMC/CoSN horizon report > 2017 K-12 edition. The New Media Consortium. https://library.educause. edu/~/media/files/library/2017/11/2017hrk12EN.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2019. Gunn, J. (2017). The evolution of STEM and STEAM in the U.S. https://education.cu-­portland. edu/blog/classroom-­resources/evolution-­of-­stem-­and-­steam-­in-­the-­united-­states. Accessed 19 Sept 2019. Institute for Arts Integration and STEAM. (n.d.). https://artsintegration.com. Accessed 2 June 2022. Intel. (n.d.). Intelligent decisions with Intel internet of things (IoT). https://www.intel.com/content/ www/us/en/internet-­of-­things/overview.html. Accessed 7 Feb 2022. Laorenza EA, Pacheco M, & Shah, H.2012. STEM inequity: New England’s ethnic, poverty, and ELL achievement gaps. http://www.brown.edu/initiatives/new-­england-­equity-­assistancecenter/ sites/brown.edu.initiatives.new-­england-­equity-­assistance-­center/files/uploads/STEM%20 Data%20Brief_111112-­4.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2015. Level Up Village. (n.d.). https://www.levelupvillage.com. Accessed 2 June 2022. Long, P., & Mott, G. 2017. The N2GDLE vision: The “next” next generation digital learning environment. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2017/7/the-­n2gdle-­vision-­the-­next-­next-­generation-­ digital-­learning-­environment. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed. An argument for AI in education. Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-­dot-­com/ one-­dot-­com/global/Files/about-­pearson/innovation/Intelligence-­Unleashed-­Publication.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019 Lynch, M. (2017a). Why makerspaces are the key to innovation. The Tech Edvocate. https://www. thetechedvocate.org/why-­makerspaces-­are-­the-­key-­to-­innovation. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Lynch, M. (2017b). How use artificial intelligence in the classroom. https://www.theedadvocate. org/how-­to-­use-­artificial-­education-­in-­the-­classroom. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Madda, M. J. (2016). Not just numbers: How educators are using data in the classroom. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-­10-­25-­not-­just-­numbers-­how-­educators-­are-­using-­data-­ in-­the-­classroom. Accessed 01 June 2022. Makransky, G., & Mayer, R. E. (2022). Benefits of taking a virtual field trip in immersive virtual reality: Evidence for the immersion principle in multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-­022-­09675-­4. Accessed 1 June 2022.

48

3  Emerging Technologies in K-12 Education

Merchant, Z., Goetz, E., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students’ learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40. Ravipati, S. 2017. IoT to represent more than half of connected device landscape by 2021. THE Journal. https://thejournal.com/articles/2017/06/09/iot-­to-­represent-­more-­than-­half-­of-­ connected-­device-­landscape-­by-­2021.aspx. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Reimann, C. (2020). The education system of the United States: STEM education in the United States – Progress without a plan. In S. Jornitz & M. Parreira do Amaral (Eds.), The education Systems of the Americas. Global Education Systems. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3 -­319-­93443-­3_24-­1 Reynalds, R. (2017). The impact of virtual reality on learning. https://campustechnology.com/ Articles/2017/04/26/The-­Impact-­of-­Virtual-­Reality-­on-­Learning.aspx?Page=1. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Riley, S. (2018). What is STEAM education. Educationcloset. https://educationcloset.com/steam/ what-­is-­steam. Accessed 21 Sept 2019. Roepke, J. (2017). How artificial intelligence will transform education. https://edtechdigest. blog/2017/04/24/how-­artificial-­intelligence-­will-­transform-­education. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Sandler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411–427. Schaffhauser, D. (2018). Experts debate merits of AI in education. Campus Technology. https:// campustechnology.com/articles/2018/12/20/experts-­debate-­merits-­of-­ai-­in-­education.aspx. Accessed 18 Jan 2019 Schaffhauser, D. (2020a). Sending AI off to school. https://thejournal.com/articles/2020/07/08/ sending-­ai-­off-­to-­school.aspx. Accessed 5 Feb 2022. Schaffhauser, D. (2020b). Report: There’s more to come for AI in ed. THE Journal. https://thejournal.com/articles/2020/12/03/report-­theres-­more-­to-­come-­for-­ai-­in-­ed.aspx. Accessed 5 Feb 2022. Stone, A. (2016). VR offers an immersive experience in the classroom. https://insights.samsung. com/2016/06/03/vr-­offers-­an-­immersive-­experience-­in-­the-­classroom. Accessed 9 Sept 2019. Tynan-Wood, C. (2016). iPads in the classroom: The promise and the problems. Great Schools. https://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/ipad-­technology-­in-­the-­classroom. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. University of Michigan-Dearborn. (n.d.). EDT 501–research, trends, and issues in educational technology. Graduate catalog. http://catalog.umd.umich.edu/graduate/coursesaz/edt. Accessed 19 Aug 2022. Vukovic, R. 2016. Primary robotics program engages students beyond the classroom. Teacher. https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/articles/primary-­robotics-­program-­engages-­students-­ beyond-­the-­classroom. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Walsh, K. (2012). Exploring the Khan Academy’s use of learning data and learning analytics. https://www.emergingedtech.com/2012/04/exploring-­the-­khan-­academys-­use-­of-­learning-­ data-­and-­learning-­analytics. Accessed 9 Sept 2019. Weyer, M., & Dell’Erba, M. (2022). Policy brief: Research and policy implications of STEAM education for young students. Education Commission of the States. chrome-extension://efaid nbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.ecs.org/wp-­content/uploads/Research-­and-­Policy-­ Implications-­of-­STEAM-­Education-­for-­Young-­Students.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2022. Xu, Y., Wang, D., Collins, P., Hyelim, L., & Warschauera, M. (2021). Same benefits, different communication patterns: Comparing children’s reading with a conversational agent vs. a human partner. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104059. Accessed 5 Feb 2022.

Chapter 4

Assistive Technology

– an Equalizer.

4.1 Introduction In the U.S. education system, assistive technology refers to assistive, adaptive, and rehabilitative devices, products, or software applications designed for students with disabilities (U.S.  Department of Education, 2019). However, Behrmann (1998) noted that assistive technology in educational settings is a broad classification, including “any item, piece of equipment, or product system acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized.” As a result, the author added, the potential range of assistive technology devices contains high-tech and low-tech tools. In addition, Behrmann pointed out that virtually all instructional technology applications are assistive technology as long as they support special needs students. In general, assistive technologies address special needs students’ physical, academic, social, and emotional needs as they navigate their learning (Behrmann, 1998; Maza, 2021). Consequently, it is presumed that through assistive technologies, these students can become more independent learners (Netherton & Deal, 2006). In addition, Netherton and Deal argued that assistive technologies could help “redefine” possibilities for special needs students. Several federal laws in the U.S., such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), govern educational services to special education students in public schools and prohibit discrimination based on disability (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). As a result, a large majority of special needs students (95%) receive instruction in traditional schools, while others attend separate institutions for students with special needs (National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 2022). In addition, most special education students in public schools spend their time in a traditional classroom with proper support, such as organized periods where students meet with special education teachers (U.S.  Department of Education, 2005). However, the time used outside the traditional classroom differs depending on the student’s needs. About half of special needs students use 80% or more of their school day in conventional classrooms (NCES, 2022). Therefore, the present

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Duran, Learning Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18111-5_4

49

50

4  Assistive Technology

chapter aims to bring readers’ attention to assistive technologies and their educational applications for special needs students in traditional school settings. First, the chapter presents background information about assistive technologies in U.S. schools. This section defines critical terminologies, provides a brief history, describes the population and demographics of special needs students in the U.S, and explains the assistive technology categories as presented in the scholarly literature. Following the background information, the chapter examines instructional challenges for special needs students. Discussions in this section give particular attention to special needs students’ varying learning differences and how assistive technologies can help address them. Next, the chapter focuses on assistive technology applications. Aligned with the assistive technology categories that Bouck (2017) specified and considering the K-12 focus of this chapter, this section addresses assistive technology applications in communication, mobility and positioning, computer access, vision and hearing, behavior and organization, and instructional aids. The chapter then discusses strategies for assistive technology integration in instruction. This section highlights multiple conceptual frameworks that guide the educational experiences of special needs students, such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Technological Pedagogic and Content Knowledge (TPACK). The section also addresses common misconceptions about assistive technology and provides suggestions for educators to overcome them. The following discussion topic of the chapter is the benefits of assistive technology in the classroom. The discussions in this section highlight studies from the literature as they provide arguments for multiple ways that assistive technology could be helpful for special needs students as they navigate their learning challenges toward reaching their full potential. Finally, the chapter addresses the current trends and issues in assistive technology and discusses their implications for policy and practices. Considering a historical background and recent developments, current trends toward more small, mobile, and personalized technology are discussed in this section. The technology industry’s current focus on creating more inclusive technology devices and software applications also finds its place in this discussion. In addition, this last section covers access issues and assistive technology financing and highlights “stigmatization,” as noted in the literature, to likely impede the further adoption of assistive technology in K-12 education. The discussion provided in this chapter applied three primary resources. First, the author conducted an extensive literature review on the chapter’s central focus— assistive technologies–through multiple databases, journals, and web resources. Second, the writer’s reflections on over 20 years of professional teaching and research experience at a comprehensive research university in the U.S. confirm the discussion. Significant published scholarship regarding technology integration in teacher preparation programs and trends and issues pertinent to educational technology further augments this expert perspective. And third, the observations and viewpoints of participants in a graduate-level online course called Application of Instructional Design enrich the chapter’s discussion. The course provides students

4.2  Purpose of the Chapter

51

with the necessary skills to apply the instructional design process using the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework in their subject areas (University of Michigan-Dearborn, n.d.). The author regularly teaches and collects data from this course. The vital viewpoint of practicing teachers who take the course offers the perspective from the field as they experience the critical developments in learning technologies, including assistive technology in their schools and their practice within them.

4.2 Purpose of the Chapter Assistive technologies are not an option for special needs students but are essential for their learning and success in school (Sullivan, 2019). Equally important is understanding how assistive technologies to aid students in overcoming barriers to reach their highest potential (Maza, 2021). Therefore, this chapter focuses on students with varying learning differences and how assistive technologies can help them. Allowing educators to gain background information about assistive technology is the first essential step to providing equitable access for children with special needs. Thus, the chapter aims to define critical terminologies, give a brief history, explain population and demographic, and describe the categorization of assistive technology. It is also vital for educators to be familiar with varying instructional challenges special needs students experience. Thus, the chapter aims to inform the readers about special needs students’ learning differences and how assistive technologies can help address them. Multiple assistive technology devices and tools are available for special needs students. When used effectively, they address the instructional challenges for students with disabilities. Therefore, the chapter extensively discusses assistive technology applications in significant categories listed in the literature. This way, education stakeholders should become familiar with the applications of assistive technology for varying purposes and needs and make informed decisions about their assistive technology choices. Having access to assistive technology is critical but does not guarantee effective use. Therefore, educators should gain confidence and competence in assistive technology integration in the classroom. Thus, later, the chapter focuses on critical frameworks and effective assistive technology integration strategies in instruction. Understanding the benefits of assistive technology in the classroom and observing research-based evidence would be a motivational factor for educators as they help special needs students to navigate their learning challenges. Thus, the chapter brings discussions in his nature to the reader’s attention. This way, educators should understand the affordances and limitations of assistive technology in educational settings.

52

4  Assistive Technology

Finally, the chapter examines current trends and issues in assistive technology and discusses their implications for policy and practice. This way, the chapter aims to assist educators in gaining a better understanding of the potential and challenges of assistive technologies and their classroom applications.

4.3 Assistive Technology Background The following section provides background information to provide an overall understanding of assistive technologies for students with disabilities. The section mainly focuses on critical terminologies, history, population and demographics, and categorization of assistive technology.

4.3.1 Critical Terminologies To provide context to the discussions addressed in this chapter, it is essential to understand common terminologies used in assistive technology discussions, such as special education, disability, and assistive technology services. Special education refers to “direct instructional activities or special learning experiences designed primarily for students identified as having exceptionalities in one or more aspects of the cognitive process or as being underachievers in relation to general level or model of their overall abilities” (De Brey et al., 2021, p.593). The authors noted that special education generally services students with the following conditions: (1) physically disabled; (2) emotionally disabled; (3) culturally different, including compensatory education; (4) intellectually disabled; and (5) students with learning disabilities (p. 593). Disability refers to having any of the following impairments; autism, deaf-­ blindness, developmental delay, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, specific learning disability, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairment (De Brey et al., 2021, p. 575–576). De Brey et  al. (2021) reported that the IDEA requires special education and related services for children with any listed impairments. The authors further elaborated that an Individualized Education Program (IEP), Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP), or a services plan guides these services. In addition, Bouck (2017) described that assistive technology services generally involve selecting, acquiring, implementing, and maintaining assistive technology devices. The author further explained that, usually, assistive technology specialists provide these services as long as they are available at the local educational agency (LEA). However, if these specialists are not readily available other professionals may serve in this role, such as special education teachers, occupational therapists, or instructional technology specialists.

4.3  Assistive Technology Background

53

4.3.2 History Behrmann (1998) argued that assistive technology requirement for special needs students is part of the “moral concerns” that the U.S. Constitution and its amendments adopted. The author noted that the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142) was established considering the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision that separate education violates equality under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Behrmann described that when Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1975, about 2 million special needs students were not part of regular schooling in the United States. The author noted that with the legislation, the president and congress set a legal mandate for a “free appropriate public education for eligible students in the least restrictive environment” for children ages 3–21 with disabilities. Then, the author stated, the special education field began to advance. Under the IDEA, the basic special education process starts with a team of professionals identifying eligible students with a disability that adversely affects their educational progress and requires special education and related services (NCES, 2022). The next step includes the development of an IEP, which is required for each special needs student who attends public schools (Office of Special Education, & Rehabilitative Services, OSERS, 2021). The OSERS further elaborated that IEP is an individualized document that provides teachers, school administrators, parents, service personnel, and students with the opportunity to work together to improve the educational outcome of students with special needs. The definition of assistive technology first appeared in federal legislation, such as the Tech Act, in the late 1980s (Bouck, 2017). The author further reported that about 10 years later, after the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, individualized education programs were required to consider assistive technology for students with special needs. However, Bouck noted that other initiatives preceding federal legislations, such as electric amplifying devices for individuals with hearing impairments becoming available in 1990, the use of the Braille code for visually impaired people in 1932, and the invention of talking calculators in 1975.

4.3.3 Population and Demographics The NCES (2022) reported that data collection activities started in 1976 to monitor compliance with the IDEA requirements. The report also pointed out that during the last decade, the number of students ages 3–21 serviced under IDEA increased from 6.5 million to 7.2 million, reaching 15% of total public school enrollment. In addition, NCES noted that in the fall 2019 academic semester, 95% of students ages 6–21 who received service under IDEA were enrolled in regular schools. The remaining group was in separate public or private schools or residential facilities.

54

4  Assistive Technology

As reported by NCES (2022) and presented in Fig. 4.1 below, in the school year 2020–2021, the highest percentage of students served under IDEA were in specific learning disability areas (33%). The other disability categories included speech or language impairment (19%), other health impairment (15%), autism (12%), developmental delay (7%), intellectual disability (6%), emotional disturbance (5%), multiple disabilities (2%), and hearing impairment (1%). The NCES (2022) further reported that in the 2020–2021 school year, among the students served under IDEA, the percentage was highest for American Indian/ Alaska Native students (19%) and Black students (17%). Conversely, the ratio was lowest for Pacific Islander students (12%) and Asian students (8%). Figure  4.2 below presents the percentage of special needs students by race/ethnicity served under the IDEA during the 2020–2021 school year. The NCES (2022) report included information about the percentage of distribution for disabilities that differed by race/ethnicity in the reporting year. Of the types of disabilities recorded, particular learning disabilities and speech or language impairments were considerably common for most racial/ethnic groups, accounting for 42% of students served under IDEA.  More than 50% of Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Pacific Islander students presented specific learning disabilities and speech or language impairments. Among Asian students served under IDA, the most common disability was autism (27%), while the percentage of other racial/ethnic groups ranged from 7% to 12%. The NCES (2022) reported that gender data on special education services are only available for students who are of school age. Of those students, a higher percentage of male students (18%) than female students (10%) received special education services under IDEA during the 2020–2021 school year. Further, the report

Fig. 4.1  Percentage of disability types. (Adopted from NCES, 2022)

4.3  Assistive Technology Background

55

Fig. 4.2  Percentage of special needs students by race/ethnicity (adopted from NCES, 2022)

highlighted that the distribution percentage for the types of services students received differed by gender. For instance, a higher rate of female students (42%) than male students (31%) received services for particular learning disabilities. On the other hand, a higher percentage of male students (15%) compared to female students (6%) received services for autism. The NCES (2022) also provided data about exit rates for special needs students ages 14–21. The report noted that about 428,000 students exited school in 2019–2020. Of those graduating with a high school diploma included 76%. In addition, 10% received an alternate certification. Another 10% of students dropped out. The remaining group had those reaching the maximum age to receive special education services (1%) and those who lost their lives. Most special education teachers and paraprofessionals in the U.S. are certified and qualified professionals. For example, the OSERS (2021) reported that 36,831 full-time special education teachers were employed in 2018, working with students ages 3–5 under IDEA.  Of which 94.3% were fully certified by their respective states. Similarly, 94.5% of the 51,386 full-time special education paraprofessionals working with the same age group were qualified, meeting the state standards. For ages 6–21, of the 392,655 full-time special education teachers, 93.6% were fully certified. Likewise, 93.8% of the 469,251 full-time special education paraprofessionals were qualified for the same age group. IDEA (P.L. 108-446) was last reauthorized in December 2004. Section 664(d) of IDEA requires an annual report to Congress (OSERS, 2021). According to the report, the reauthorization of IDEA marked the nation’s reaffirmation that it was committed to enhancing early intervention efforts, educational results, and functional outcomes for children with disabilities.

56

4  Assistive Technology

4.3.4 Categorization of Assistive Technology Bouck (2017) described two common ways assistive technology is typically categorized: by the technology level and the technology’s purpose. The author noted that concerning the level of technology, assistive technology could be low tech, mid-­ tech, or high tech. In addition, Bouck listed two common categorizations of assistive technology when the purpose is considered: purpose and potential task. Bryant and Bryant (2003, 2012) recorded seven goals in their classification: positioning, mobility, augmentative and alternative communication, computer access, adaptive toys and games, adaptive environments, and instructional aids (cited in Bouck (2017). Likewise, Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative organized assistive technology by potential task, including seating, positioning, and mobility; communication; computer access; motor aspects of writing and composition of written materials; reading; mathematics; organization; recreation and leisure; activities of daily living; vision; hearing, and multiple challenges (Gierach, 2009 cited in Bouck, 2017). Considering the similarities in both approaches, Bouck (2017) listed the following categories of assistive technology by purpose: (a) communication, (b) mobility and positioning, (c) computer access, (d) vision and hearing, (e) behavior and organization, and (f) instructional aids, and (g) independence and transition. In addition, the author included (h) assistive technology for young children as another category. Section 4.5 provides further details about the categories (a) through (f) that are more applicable in K-12 education.

4.4 Instructional Challenges for Special Needs Students Brunvand and Byrd (2011) shared the following scenarios to highlight some of the challenges that special needs students experience: Consider these three students: Jeremy, who is easily distracted and has difficulty staying on task in social studies; Brad, who has specific learning disabilities that place him at risk of dropping out due to lack of motivation and fear of failure; and Angelina, who has received interventions through several grade levels to address her struggles with assignments and assessments.

The authors argued that assistive technologies could improve the instructional skills of the students mentioned above and others as they engage with digital tools to enhance their educational activities at their own pace and learning level. Citing multiple studies (e.g., Capper & Frattura, 2009; Levy, 2008), Brunvand and Byrd (2011) highlighted the importance of addressing all learners’ educational needs. To this end, the authors noted that teachers strive to differentiate instruction for special needs students who typically need additional support with the general education curriculum.

4.5  Assistive Technology Applications

57

Referencing several studies (e.g., Goldberg et al., 2003; Myers & Beach, 2004; Nicolaou et  al., 2007), Brunvand and Byrd (2011) pointed out that a volume of assistive technology tools and devices is available to enhance the educational experiences of special needs students. In addition, the authors argued that engaging and sustaining attention, maintaining motivation, and completing assigned tasks are the essential “ingredients” for successful learning. Yet, the authors noted that many special needs students experience challenges in these areas. For instance, Brunvand and Byrd mentioned that attending class activities regularly or completing course assignments are relatively challenging tasks for students with a learning disability or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Giving another example, the authors pointed out that it is possible to see a low level of engagement in classroom activities and little motivation for learning among students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Finally, Brunvand and Byrd noted that active learning is essential for learning success, where assistive technologies come to play.

4.5 Assistive Technology Applications Aligned with the assistive technology categories Bouck (2017) listed and considering the K-12 level focus of this chapter, the following section examines assistive technology application in communication, mobility and positioning, computer access, vision and hearing, behavior and organization, and instructional aids. Each section includes an overall discussion and examples of assistive technologies in the related category. When used effectively, the discussed applications can potentially address some of the instructional challenges for special needs students that Brunvand and Byrd (2011) highlighted in the previous section.

4.5.1 Communication Applications Bouck (2017) described that communication applications of assistive technology focus on supporting special needs students with verbal communication, also known as augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). The author explained that AAC supports students with severe speech and language impairments, autism spectrum disorders, cerebral palsy, or intellectual disability. The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD, n.d.) reported that nearly 1 in 12 children in the U.S. have some sort of speech disability. Bouck noted that some special needs students use AAC tools as their primary means of communication while others use them as a supplemental tool. Varying AAC devices are available for use, from no-tech to high-tech. In addition, Bouck (2017) reported other categories of AAC options, such as unaided and aided AAC.  The author also noted that another category includes stand-alone or

58

4  Assistive Technology

dedicated devices and non-dedicated devices involving repurposing technology for communication, such as mobile devices serving as an AAC through related apps. Typically, an unaided communication system involves using body parts like the face, hands, or other physical gestures for communication (Bouck, 2017). A prime example of this category is sign language. On the other hand, Bouck described that aided communication requires a device or tool external to the user, ranging from low-tech to high-tech; each typically involves some form of symbols representing intended words or phrases. For instance, Bouck noted that Boardmaker (myboardmaker.com) is one of the well-known symbols platform for special needs students. Stand-alone or dedicated AACs include nonelectronic and electronic versions (Bouck, 2017). The author explained that nonelectronic aided AAC are typically low-tech devices, such as communication boards, books, and eye gaze displays. For electronic aided AACs, Brook named voice output communication aids or speech-­ generating devices, such as Go Talk (attainmentcompany.com), Quick Talker (ablenetinc.com), and Maestro (us.tobiidynavox.com). In addition to stand-alone dedicated devices, AAC apps are also increasingly available for special needs students–non-dedicated devices (Bouck, 2017). Operating similar to stand-alone devices, these apps are used in multipurpose devices, such as smartphones and tablets. Some of the many examples Bouck shared include Proloquo2Go, Alexicom AAC, and GoTalk Now. Maza (2021) described that AACs enable students with speech difficulties to share their ideas and feelings regardless of their category. The author noted that many special needs students could benefit from using them, as they address students’ unique needs. Maza suggested that AACs should be integrated into the language and communication interventions as early as possible because they can provide a solid foundation for developing spoken language comprehension and production. Scholarly literature includes a volume of research indicating the impact of AAC devices (Bouck, 2017). The author also listed multiple studies where AAC devices do not negatively impact speech development (e.g., Millar et al., 2006; Schlosser & Wendt, 2009). Comparative studies on the different types of AACs have also been conducted. For example, one research comparing non-electronic AAC versus electronic ones found it effective in both modules (Flores et  al., 2012, cited in Bouck, 2017). In sum, as Bouck (2017) argued, AAC devices create opportunities for special needs students to enhance their communication skills and help them to become more independent learners. In addition, the author argued that varying options of AAC, from low-tech to high-tech, support individuals across a lifespan. Yet, Bouck noted that students and their communication partners such as teachers, parents, and other service providers need to educate themselves about the proper use of these devices.

4.5  Assistive Technology Applications

59

4.5.2 Mobility and Positioning Applications Maza (2021) described that some students require mobility assistance due to certain physical limitations, such as “amputation, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, fibromyalgia, or cerebral palsy.” The author reported that assistive technology like switch-adapted devices, flexible furniture, and computer accessories could help these special needs students with fine and gross motor movements. Bouck (2017) noted that in addition to orthopedic impairments, students with other disabilities could also benefit from assistive technology for mobility and positioning, such as students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders (ADHD), emotional-­behavior disorders, or visual impairment. Bouck (2017) described that assistive technology for mobility involves tools and devices that support students’ movements in the classrooms, instructional labs, and the school at large. In addition, the author noted that features of these educational spaces are essential to offer unrestricted activities with reasonable accommodations, such as rap, accessible doors, and restroom facilities. Bouck also considered accessible materials to all students regardless of their height as part of the mobility issues. Given examples of tools and devices with mobility components, the author named adjustable height desks, tables, and computer stations. In addition, Bouck highlighted wheelchairs as one of the most commonly used assistive technology for mobility. Finally, she listed other low-tech mobility devices, such as scooters, gait trainers, standing devices, adaptive strollers, belts, and canes. Addressing assistive technology for positioning and seating, Bouck (2017) described that positioning is a student’s postural alignment, and there are devices and tools to support this alignment. She added that assistive technology to support positioning and seating is crucial for students who use a wheelchair for mobility and others with physical disabilities but also supports other students, such as students with ADHD and emotional-behavior disorder. Giving examples, Bouck listed adaptive seating options, seat cushions, stability therapy balls, standing desks, footstools, and beanbag chairs among assistive technology for positioning and seating. Considering digital resources for mobility, Bouck (2017) highlighted Web 2.0 recourses and apps to measure mobility or track activities, such as FitBit (fitbit. com). Other digital tools could include wearable technologies, physical fitness monitors, smartwatches, and pedometers. In conclusion, multiple assistive technologies exist for mobility, positioning, and seating. As Bouck (2017) argued, these technologies are not limited to students with physical disabilities or orthopedic impairments but also assist others, such as students with ADHD, emotional-behavior disorders, or a visual impairment, as they participate in classroom and school activities.

60

4  Assistive Technology

4.5.3 Computer Access Applications Access to digital technologies is part of a regular school function now. However, special needs students’ access to computer-related technologies may require alternative input and output options. Among them are alternate keyboard and mouse options, touch screens, voice recognition, and switches (Bouck, 2017). Maza (2021) noted that varying computer keyboards with more accessible functionalities are available for special needs students to meet their unique needs. For instance, the author explained that most assistive technology keyboards have unique overlays with larger font sizes and come with group keys by color and location. In addition, Maza said other keyboards include decreased input options and graphic aids to help easy use with customizable options to complement students’ tasks and abilities. Bouck (2017) added that keyboard options exist in alternate devices, such as ergonomic, one-handed, and flat, touch-based keyboards. Bouck also noted that beyond alternative keyboards, additional accessories are available for special needs students, including keyguards, head sticks, mouth sticks, and hand pointers. In addition to alternative keyboards, varying computer mouse options are available for students with disabilities. These assistive technologies include a wireless mouse, a left-handed mouse, a one-button mouse, and an optical mouse (Bouck, 2017). In addition, the author noted that joysticks and trackballs serve as an alternate mouse for students with fine-motor issues and coordination challenges. Finally, Bouck pointed out that instead of a mouse often requiring hand control, special needs students could also choose trackpads or hand-free mouse options such as foot mouse, head mouse, and eye gaze, an eye track technology. Touch screens give another alternate way of accessing computers and mobile devices. Bouck (2017) commented that the touch screen option was an added feature in the past but has become more commonly used with the development of smartphones and mobile devices, such as iPad and tablets. Regardless, touch screen technology allows access to digital devices via finger touch or special pens. Voice recognition technology provides another alternate option for special needs students to use digital tools (Bouck, 2017; Maza, 2021). Multiple applications of voice technology use are already in place, such as opening an application, Internet searching, or dictating a paper. Some special needs students might find the speech-­ to-­text options that voice recognition technology offers very helpful. As a stand-alone technology, switches are multifunctional tools for special needs students to operate battery-powered tools, AAC devices, or control instruments (Bouck, 2017). The author noted that students could use multiple body parts to operate switches, such as hands, head, foot, or elbows. In addition, Bouck noted that movement-based switches are available for use, including physical touching or without contact. In sum, students and teachers increasingly use digital technologies like computers, tablets, and smartphones for educational purposes. In addition, assistive technologies, built into these devices or used as an add-on, allow special needs students to access computer-related devices and their applications equally.

4.5  Assistive Technology Applications

61

4.5.4 Vision and Hearing Applications Bouck (2017) described that vision and hearing applications of assistive technology focus on supporting students with sensory disabilities, such as visual impairments, hearing impairments, or who are deaf-blind. Hence, they continue their academics and daily living activities. In their 2018 annual report, the American Printing House for the Blind (APH, 2018) highlighted that approximately 63,501 students in the U.S. are registered as legally blind. Further, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 2020) reported that 6.8% of children in the U.S. have eye and vision conditions. Maza (2021) noted that blind or visually impaired students experience challenges concerning writing, color and shape recognition, and navigating classrooms. The author argued that assistive technology offers aid in this respect, such as audiovisual tools that read instructional materials out loud or tools that provide Braille support. In addition, Maza noted that partial visual impaired students could enhance their learning and communication by using aids like bright lights, sounds, tactile cues, and magnified view. Bouck (2017) discussed that assistive technology for vision includes varying degrees of options, low-tech through high-tech. For instance, she said, there is still a volume of printed text that is not readily accessible to students with visual impairments. One way of access includes Braille as an alternative text reading option. In addition, assistive technology tools can help special needs students by providing access to the text appearing on computer screens using a refreshable braille display. Bouck also highlighted enlarged print and magnifying glasses for low-vision students regarding reading support with low-tech tools. In addition, she mentioned the mid-tech options of electronic vision enhancement systems or closed-circuit television. Finally, Bouck named e-books, eText, and tactile graphics for text-based reading technology. Writing is another area in that assistive technology provides support for visually impaired students. For example, Bouck (2017) included braille to produce text in this category and print them out using a braille printer. In addition, the author noted that students could use speech-to-text or voice recognition software to produce their writing. Considering other academic areas, Bouck (2017) included talking calculators in mathematics, talking scale or sensor probes in science, and GPS apps for daily living as assistive technology examples for visually impaired students. CDC (2018) reported that 5578 children in the U.S. were identified with permanent hearing loss. In addition, of every 1000 children, 2–3 need educational assistance for hearing impairments (NIDCD, 2021). For these students, it is challenging to follow typical classroom activities and communicate with teachers. Similar to the assistive technology for vision, numerous assistive technology devices and tools benefit students with hearing impairments, such as assistive listening devices, infrared systems, and communicators (Maza, 2021). In addition, Bouck (2017) listed sign language as the commonly used alternative communication device. Other

62

4  Assistive Technology

devices she mentioned include hearing aids, implants, and assistive listening devices (ALDs). Bouck (2017) described that students with a particular degree of visual and hearing impairments (deaf-blind) could also benefit from assistive technology tools and devices listed above. The author added that they might use tactile signing in terms of communication. Concerning their daily living, they may rely on tactile arms, for instance. Finally, she noted that the Internet could, in my way, provide independence for deaf-blind students, such as online shopping and digital communication. In sum, students with vision and hearing impairments could utilize varying assistive technologies to support their educational activities and daily living. As Bouck (2017) recommended, student preferences and abilities should be considered when choosing assistive devices.

4.5.5  Behavior and Organization Applications Behavior and organization applications of assistive technologies focus on supporting special needs students with “organization, self-management and self-­monitoring, and social skills” (Bouck, 2017, p. 151). The author noted that varying special needs students could benefit from assistive technologies in this particular area, such as students with autism spectrum disorder, emotional/behavioral disorders, and ADHD. Multiple technologies can assist in helping special needs students get and stay organized, including low-tech, mid-tech, and high-tech tools. For example, Bouck (2017) included planners, color-coding work and folders, highlighters, and sticky notes in the low-tech area. In addition, the author added the use of pictures or visual schedules teachers use for visual reminders, particularly with autistic students, which is considered research-based practice (Knight et al., 2015, cited in Bouck, 2017). Bouck viewed audio recorders, for instance, as mid-tech tools supporting special needs students’ organizing, planning, and prioritizing skills. For example, the author noted that students, parents, or teachers could use audio recorders for prompts, cues, or reminders. Maza (2021) included timers as another example for students with pacing challenges. Finally, focusing on high-tech devices, Bouck cited the Livescribe smartpen, which captures everything students write on special paper and records audio simultaneously, assisting with organization and memory. Frankenberger (n.d.), for instance, noted that dyslexic students would have more time to listen and learn if the classroom discussions were recorded. In addition to stand-alone assistive technology such as those mentioned above, special needs students could use apps on smartphones or tablets to improve their organizational skills (Bouck, 2017). The author noted that common apps in this category include standards reminder or calendar apps typically included in the operating system of mobile devices. In addition, the author pointed out that students, teachers, and parents can use similar apps (e.g., iHomework, Evernote, and inClass) to support special needs students with planning, time management, and organizing their in-school and after-school programs.

4.5  Assistive Technology Applications

63

Bouck (2017) reported that assistive technology could also help teachers to monitor and evaluate student behaviors–classroom management. The author argued that even though this could be done with low-tech tools such as paper and pencil, more advanced technologies offer alternatives. For example, Bouck named Class Dojo (classdojo.com) allows teachers to record positive or negative student behaviors on digital devices. Similar other tools also help with classroom management, such as Teacher Kit (teacherkit.net), allowing teachers to record attendance, behavior, and grades. Bouck mentioned other products to help students take responsibility for self-management and self-monitoring. She noted that this could be supported by repurposing multiple digital tools like smartphones or tablets or apps like UPAD, TickTick (ticktick.com), and Do it [Tomorrow] (tomorrow.do). Another behavior element is social skills, allowing students to make proper decisions in various circumstances (Bouck, 2017). However, the author pointed out that learning and exhibiting consistent positive social skills are challenging for some students, such as starting a conversation and responding to others, proper play skills, social routines, and controlling emotions. Therefore, teachers recommended interventions to teach and assist social skills. For instance, in teaching autism spectrum disorders, video modeling showed promising results (Otero et  al. 2015, cited in Bouck, 2017). In this direction, teachers and students can create their videos or use commercial products like Model Me Kids (modelmekinds.com) offer videos that model social skills for students. Some example app options for the same purpose include StoryMaker, I Create, and Stories About Me. More advanced assistive technology options, such as virtual reality and robots, support students’ social skill development (Cheng et al., 2010; Senland, 2014 cited in Bouck, 2017). One such example of robot platforms is NAO (asknao.aldebaran.com) which was found effective in improving social behaviors of autism spectrum disorders (Diehl et al., 2013). Assistive technologies such as the Touch and Learn-Emotions and Social-­ Emotional Exchange apps also support children’s socioemotional or social-­ emotional development (Bouck, 2017). The author reported that robotic animals in place of live ones are examples in this context. The author also highlighted that sensory-based assistive technology addresses areas of sensory integration for children with sensory processing disorders, such as Doodle Revolution (sunnibrown. com/doodlerevoluation). In sum, as Bouck (2017) argued, assistive technology can support students with special needs in terms of behavior, organization, and social skills. Students with autism spectrum disorder, emotional/behavioral disorder, ADHD, and learning disabilities could benefit from assistive technology support of this nature.

4.5.6 Instructional Aid Applications As Bouck (2017) described, instructional aid applications of assistive technology include considerations for special needs students’ academic needs across the disability spectrum. The author noted that for many students with disabilities, assistive

64

4  Assistive Technology

technology serves as an instructional aide, as discussed in the previous sections. This section focuses on access, achievement, and alternative delivery format like online or hybrid learning, as described by Bouck. Targeting core academic areas, the following section discusses instructional aid applications of assistive technology in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. In addition, the section addresses the online and hybrid learning modes of instruction for students with disabilities. Bouck (2017) asserted that assistive technology could help special needs students understand reading comprehension, access, independence, and decoding. The author listed some low-tech assistive technology applications such as using highlighters, changing the font size of the text, or adding visual support for text. Concerning mid-tech and high-tech applications, Bouck mentioned standalone text-­ to-­speech devices, such as handheld optical character recognition systems, reading pens, and talking dictionaries. In addition, the author pointed out text-to-speech computer programs, similar built-in accessibility features in Mac and Windows platforms, and educational apps. Writing is another critical area special needs students could benefit from assistive technology as they focus on handwriting, spelling, and composition (Bouck, 2017). Bouck listed pencil grips, adaptive paper like raised-line paper, and planning and organization tools as examples of low-tech assistive technology tools for writing. In addition, multiple mid-tech and high-tech assistive technology options are available for writing support. Bouck included typing via computers, word processing programs, mobile devices, and accessibility features, such as word prediction and text-to-speech in these categories. Assistive technology provides critical sport for special needs students in mathematics education. Like other subject areas discussed above, low-tech and high-tech tools and devices are available. For instance, concrete manipulatives, graph paper, and number lines are among the low-tech options (Bouck, 2017). The author noted that the other end of the spectrum includes examples like calculators, virtual manipulatives, and computer-assisted instruction. Bouck (2017) argued that a handful of assistive technologies are available to support teaching and learning in science and social studies. However, the author noted that assistive technology tools and devices discussed above could also apply in these fields. In addition, she pointed out one specific assistive technology that supports special needs students in science–CAST UDL Science Writer (sciencewriter.cast. org). This online tool helps secondary students produce lab reports and allows users to apply built-in features like text-to-speech enabling users to edit and revise their writing. In addition to core academic areas, assistive technology could support special needs students with their study skills, such as note-taking, preparing review sheets, and study guides (Bouck, 2017). The author noted the Livescribe smartpen, Evernote (evernote.com), and Quizlet (quizlet.com) as examples. Finally, Bouck (2017) argued that the online and hybrid learning modes are increasingly available options for special needs students. In this regard, the author

4.6  Strategies for Assistive Technology Integration in Instruction

65

listed freely available learning management systems like Schoology (schology. com), Edmodo (edmodo.com), and Khan Academy (khanacademy.com).

4.6 Strategies for Assistive Technology Integration in Instruction Multiple conceptual frameworks guide the educational experiences of special needs students. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is commonly referred conceptual framework. Originating from the field of architecture, ULD promotes considering accessibility for buildings, products, and services from the beginning so individuals with varying abilities or needs can use them (Bouck, 2017). The framework applies to physical features of educational institutions like accessible schools and classrooms and further recommends usability for all learners when developing curricula and preparing instructional activities. This way, the systematic structure for providing options and customization would be available to help special needs students succeed with the general education students. In addition, the Council for Exceptional Children (2005) recommended multiple means of representation or presentation, engagement, and expression (cited in Bouck, 2017). Bouck argued that assistive technology and UDL are closely related. Technology plays a significant role in providing UDL by facilitating multiple options for diverse learners as they engage in the learning process and express themselves through various channels. Capp (2017) conducted a meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016, investigating the impact of UDL. Results indicated that the UDL is an effective instructional strategy, positively impacting the learning process for all students. Bouck (2017) argued that the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework introduced by Mishra and Koehler (2006) is not a specific assistive technology framework but can be applied to assistive technology decision-­ making. The author highlighted that TPACK illustrates how content, pedagogy, and technology intertwine in a dynamic relationship to facilitate an effective learning environment. Further, the framework requires attention to contextual issues. In this way, Bouck asserted that the TPACK could be applied to assistive technology decision-­making by considering the content (what a special education student can do), pedagogy (how they can do it), and technology (what type of assistive technology can enhance the teaching and learning). See Chap. 2, Sect. 2.4.1 for more discussion about the TPACK framework. Focusing on practical applications, Maza (2021) argued that having the correct assistive technology and properly integrating these technologies into instruction are equally important endeavors. The author noted that regardless of the assistive technology or the special needs student group to teach, the best practices of assistive technology integration should include multiple strategies. Maza highlighted that the first strategy is recognizing students’ individualized needs and identifying the right assistive technology–knowing what works. The author elaborated that assistive

66

4  Assistive Technology

technologies are necessarily individualized tools, as what works for one student may not work for another. Therefore, Maza pointed out that teachers need to identify each student’s conditions and compare them with the right assistive technology. Second, Maza focused on student exploration–let your students play and explore. Focusing on learning by doing, the author recommended allowing students to access various assistive technologies and allowing them to investigate the learning potentials, affordances, and limitations of each tool for their purpose. This way, students gain the opportunity to learn about what works for them (as well as more about themselves) while teachers gain a clear view of student preferences. Finally, Maza highlighted the significance of maintaining ongoing learning. The author emphasized the fast phase of technology developments and keeping up with recent technology as an essential role of special education professionals. Maza also reminded us about school administrators’ important role in the continuous professional development that school staff should receive. Sullivan (February 2019) underlined misunderstandings about assistive technology and indicated that overcoming common misconceptions could encourage educators to consider assistive technology integration into the curriculum. The first misconception that the author highlighted is assuming that assistive technology is expensive. The author noted that some assistive technology tools are not easily affordable, but most are inexpensive or freely available. For instance, she said that special needs students’ software on their digital devices ranges from free apps to expensive programs. She added that many states provide loans for students, parents, and teachers to aid with costly tools or instruments, allowing them to locate the right assistive technology for a trial period before purchase. Another misconception Sullivan mentioned is that assistive technology is more work for teachers. However, she argued that assistive technology infusion could be done without creating more work for teachers, similar to any other technology integration in the classroom. In addition, Sullivan noted that teachers in special education classrooms are likely already applying differentiated instruction and aligning their instructional strategies toward diverse learners in any way. Finally, Sullivan pointed out a misconception that assistive technology can only be used in the classroom. The author reminded us that many assistive technologies could be used in multiple places like school, home, or after-school activities. For example, she said, students who use augmentative and alternative communication devices can communicate with other students, teachers, coaches, and other family members while attending various events and activities.

4.7 Benefits of Assistive Technology in the Classroom Sullivan (February 2019) highlighted that assistive technology could be a “game-­ changer” for special needs students. The author argued that when students have access to the right assistive technology tool, they can better engage with the curriculum, focus on learning, and have opportunities for success in and around the school. Similarly, Maza (2021) noted that focusing on learning by doing and hands-on

4.7  Benefits of Assistive Technology in the Classroom

67

learning, assistive technology tools provide a learning environment for special needs students that is less stressful, applies to play and learn, and strengthens students’ skill sets for engaged instruction. Agreeing with Sullivan and Maza, Brunvand and Byrd (2011) asserted that assistive technology tools promote students’ engagement and motivation, enhancing the quality of students’ learning experiences. In addition, Brunvand and Byrd noted that assistive technology allows a “guided learning” setting in which special needs students can participate in instruction that facilitates their individual learning needs. The recent COVID-19 pandemic brought many challenges to K-12 schools in the U.S. across the board. However, the increased use of technology two years into the pandemic seems to help many special education families become more involved in benefiting their children (Albanese, 2022). Interviewing the leaders and advocates in the field of exceptional children, Albanese reported improved opportunities for effective communication with families, increased family awareness of supporting their special needs students learning, and the development of a new way to deliver instruction for students with disabilities. Focusing on specifics, Maza (2021) highlighted multiple ways assistive technology helps students. First, the author pointed out that assistive technology allows for teaching cause-and-effect relationships. Maza elaborated that the concept of cause-­ and-­effect relationships is a challenging topic for special needs students. Yet, the author emphasized that comprehending how actions lead to events like conducting a math function that directs to a correct solution is critical in learning. Maza concluded that assistive technology such as capability switches for people with physical disabilities helps students make that connection, allowing them to control their education and increase their self-esteem. Second, Maza stressed that assistive technology aids group instruction and sharing time. The author reminded us of the importance of group time, like learning circles in instructional activities where students interact and learn academic and social skills. Maza stressed that bypassing assistive technologies like switch-adapted toys or music devices helps students interact with each other promoting engagement and collaborative learning. Third, Maza mentioned assistive technology’s use strengthens fine motor skills that could be complex for some students. For instance, the author said that activity boxes or small manipulatives enable special needs students to improve their fine motor skills, expanding their ability to perform tasks in the classroom or around the school. Finally, Maza highlighted assistive technology benefits for visual tracking for those students who have visual challenges, such as visually impaired, partially sighted, or blind. The author argued that most visual tracking tools, which include features like sliding utilizing lights and having an auditory component to keep students engaged, strengthen visual processing skills making learning attainable for these students. Bouck (2017) noted that even though assistive technology includes multiple categories ranging from no-tech to high-tech, their affordances are helpful for special needs students regardless of its mode. Agreeing with Bouck, Netherton and Deal (2006) added that assistive technology can “equalize” students’ learning potential with disabilities. Behrmann (1998) also considered assistive technology as “an equalizer” for special needs students. The author argued that, otherwise, students

68

4  Assistive Technology

with disabilities would have a lesser chance to participate fully in schools, work, and community. Behrmann added that this is particularly true for those students with mobility, hearing, or vision impairments and children with constraints with cognition and perception. In addition to the discussions highlighted above, the literature has a growing volume of research concerning the impact of assistive technology. For instance, Perelmutter et al. (2017) conducted a systematic review and a meta-analysis studying the effect of assistive technology interventions on adolescents and adults with learning disabilities. The study findings indicated the overall benefits of the 56 interventions investigated. The most effective interventions included word processing, multimedia, and hypertext. On the other hand, smart pens and text-to-speech tools showed mixed results. Aspiranti et  al. (2018) conducted a similar meta-analysis investigating the impact of mobile devices on students with autism. The study findings highlighted the significant impact of iPads on autistic students’ learning outcomes. In sum, assistive technology tailored toward each special needs student’s unique conditions, learning styles, and individual preferences enhance the teaching and learning process allowing them to become active learners and reach their full potential. In addition, these technologies support inclusive classroom practices. Yet, assistive technology requires thoughtful integration into the curriculum, as discussed in the previous section.

4.8 Current Trends in Assistive Technology There have been general technology developments that are likely to impact assistive technology trends. For example, Bolkan (2012) anticipated over a decade ago that every technology is becoming mobile, smaller, faster, and more personalized. Likewise, Bouck (2017) expected that assistive technology would follow similar trends; mobile tablets and smartphone apps are becoming increasingly available for special needs students, teachers, and parents. In addition, Cohen (2021) reported that the technology industry is now more focused on creating inclusive assistive devices and software for special needs students, positively impacting their personal lives, work opportunities, and educational options. For example, the author highlighted that major technology companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Zoom had provided updates to their platforms and products to address accessibility. Cohen (2021) named some applications, such as the Internet of Things (IoT) and interconnected wireless devices, robotic assistance, and modified gaming platforms, all providing extended mobility options for individuals with special needs. In addition to mobility accessibility technologies, Cohen reported on new developments in assistive visual technologies, such as screen reading and enlargement programs, Braille tech adaptations, and color identification software. Another category Cohen mentioned is voice command technology, including text-to-speech and voice search

4.10 Conclusion

69

for search engines. In addition, Cohen said that video relay and hearing assistance, such as conference video calls, sound notifications, and Bluetooth hearing devices, are increasingly becoming available. Finally, the author highlighted “neurodivergent technologies” designed to improve independence, such as virtual reality rehabilitation, utilization of games, and augmentative/alternative communication devices. Macias (2022) argued that as the COVID-19 pandemic goes into its third year, it has brought employment, technology, healthcare, and education developments that have benefited individuals with disabilities. Yet, the author pointed out that the challenge now is ensuring continuity. Similarly, Patrick and Barbareschi (n.d.) further noted that whether the current acceptance and use of inclusive applications in both physical and digital spaces continue in the post-pandemic era remains a question of inquiry.

4.9 Issues Related to Assistive Technology Historically, the financing of assistive technology has been a significant issue. For instance, in writing from the early 2000s, multiple authors highlighted the access issue as a significant obstacle for some special needs students and their parents (Copley & Ziviani, 2004; Judge, 2000). Later, Watson and Johnston (2007) reported that due to financial constraints, accessibility to assistive technology devices was still challenging, preventing some special needs students from accessing them in the classroom. Echoing Watson and Johnston a decade later, Bouck (2017) argued that even though the potential benefits of assistive technologies are in less discussion, challenges concerning their use exist, with access still being a substantial issue. It appears that affordability will likely impede the adoption of assistive technology in K-12 education for some time. Highlighting stigmatization as another issue, Bouck (2017) recognized that even if access is not an issue, students themselves still can impede assistive technology use. Citing Alper and Raharinirina (2006), Bouck noted that due to stigmatization, students might abandon or reject using an assistive technology device they need.

4.10 Conclusion The following reflections posted in the Application of Instructional Design course discussion by a middle school science teacher during the winter 2022 semester captured critical arguments presented in this chapter: A few years ago, when I taught science, I had a visually impaired student who wanted to be a scientist when he grew up. He had been having lab partners collect data for him, but I knew that this was not helping him interact with the scientific phenomenon or data personally, and I felt that it was hindering his growth as a young scientist. So I had experience

70

4  Assistive Technology using a LabQuest (vernier.com/products/labquest) device and worked with Oakland Schools [district] to get the students a talking device to collect their data independently. It was a positive experience for the visually impaired student and enhanced the lesson for the students around him.

First, the above comments illustrated a case that the present chapter aimed at bringing readers’ attention to; assistive technology applications for special needs students in regular school settings. In the U.S., multiple federal laws such as the IDEA govern educational services to students with special needs in public schools, requiring inclusion for students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). As a result, most special needs students (95%) receive education in traditional schools (NCES, 2022). Furthermore, nearly half of all special needs students spend most of their time (80% or more) in traditional classrooms (NCES, 2022). Second, vital importance in the presented case was the teacher’s recognition of the instructional challenge that the special needs student was experiencing–independence in his learning. Similarly, this chapter highlighted the learning differences of students with disabilities and how assistive technologies could help manage them. As Brunvand and Byrd (2011) argued, multiple skills, such as paying attention, maintaining motivation, and completing assigned tasks, are essential in learning attainment. Yet, the authors noted that many special needs students experience challenges in these areas. Third, the above teacher comments highlighted an observation and recognition of assistive technology consideration for a student with a sensory disability, visual impairment in this case regarding academics. The teacher’s observation reflects that, like any other students in her class, the visually impaired student wanted to achieve the instructional goals of the lesson and pursue a career trajectory– becoming a scientist when he grew up. The recognition on the teacher’s behalf is that under the IDEA, a visual impairment must not adversely impact a student’s education pursuits (Bouck, 2017). Fourth, in the example presented above, the teacher showed familiarity with an assistive technology tool, Talking LabQuest, to improve access to science experiments for visually impaired students. As was the case for the presented example, assistive technologies could help “redefine what is possible” for special needs students with varying cognitive, physical, or sensory disabilities (Netherton & Deal, 2006). Therefore, the present chapter discussed major categories of assistive technology applications for special needs students in K-12 education, as presented by Bouck (2017): assistive technology for (a) communication, (b) mobility and positioning, (c) computer access, (d) vision and hearing, (e) behavior and organization, and (f) instructional aids. Fifth, the comments from the above science teacher presented great confidence and competence in assistive technology integration in her lesson. Similarly, the present chapter argued that access to assistive technology is the critical first step but does not guarantee effective use. Therefore, the current chapter highlighted multiple conceptual frameworks and effective assistive technology integration strategies in instruction, such as UDL, TPACK, and overcoming common misconceptions about assistive technology.

References

71

The final comments from the teacher in the above example indicated that assistive technology integration positively impacted the visually impaired student and enhanced the lesson for other students in her class. Likewise, the present chapter brought multiple discussions, including research findings, to the readers’ attention concerning the affordances and limitations of assistive technology in the classroom. As noted by various authors, assistive technology is vital to learning and success in schools and could “equalize” students’ learning potential with disabilities (Behrmann, 1998; Netherton & Deal, 2006; Sullivan February, 2019). However, the literature also highlighted that effective use of assistive technology requires thoughtful integration into the curriculum, considering each special needs student’s unique conditions, learning styles, and individual preferences (Bouck, 2017). Given the historical context and recent developments, current trends and issues related to assistive technology in U.S. K-12 schools bring multiple critical discussion topics to the education stakeholders’ attention as they present policy and practice implications. As the current chapter discussed, similar to the overall trends in digital technologies, assistive technology is becoming increasingly mobile, smaller, faster, and personalized (Bolkan, 2012; Bouck, 2017). For instance, an increasing volume of mobile tablets and smartphone apps are available for special needs students, teachers, and parents. In addition, the leading technology developers have also increasingly focused on creating inclusive assistive platforms for special needs students, allowing better educational options and work opportunities (Cohen, 2021). This development was notable during the recent COVID-19 pandemic and the necessary remote education and work environment (Macias, 2022). Yet, multiple challenges still need to be addressed, such as the continuing inclusive applications in the post-pandemic era delineated by Patrick and Barbareschi (n.d.). Numerous other writers also anticipate that access and affordability would likely remain a challenge for the further adoption of assistive technology in K-12 education (Watson & Johnston, 2007; Bouck, 2017).

References Albanese, G. (2022). Special ed leaders: Tech has proven beneficial post-pandemic. Government Technology. https://www.govtech.com/education/k-­12/special-­ed-­leaders-­tech-­has-­proven-­ beneficial-­post-­pandemic. Accessed 2022, June 21. Alper, S., & Raharinirina, S. (2006). Assistive technology for individuals with disabilities: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(2), 47–64. American Printing House for the Blind. (2018). Annual report fiscal year 2018. https://nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/aph/app/uploads/2019/05/26161021/Annual-­Report-­FY2018-­accessible-­1. pdf. Accessed 2022, July 14. Aspiranti, K. B., Larwin, K. H., & Schade, B. P. (2018). iPads/tablets and students with autism: A meta-analysis of academic effects. Assistive Technology, 32(1), 23–30. Behrmann, M. (1998). Assistive technology for young children in special education: It makes a difference. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/assistive-­technology-­young-­children-­special-­ education. Accessed 2022, June 9.

72

4  Assistive Technology

Bolkan, J. (2012). Research: IT predictions for 2013. THE Journal. https://thejournal.com/articles/2012/12/19/research-­it-­predictions-­for-­2013.aspx?admgarea=News1. Accessed 2022, June 21. Bouck, E. C. (2017). Assistive technology. Sage Publishing. Brunvand, S., & Byrd, S. (2011). Using voicethread to promote learning engagement and success for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4), 28–37. Bryant, D., & Bryant, B. (2003). Assistive technology for people with disabilities. Allyn & Bacon. Bryant, D., & Bryant, B. (2012). Assistive technology for people with disabilities (2nd ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8), 791–807. Capper, C. A., & Frattura, E. M. (2009). Meeting the needs of students of all abilities: How leaders go beyond inclusion. Corwin Press. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). 2018 type and severity summary of identified cases of hearing loss (by ear): ASHA classification. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/hearingloss/2018-­data/14-­type-­and-­severity.html. Accessed 2022, July 14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Fast facts of common eye disorders. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/visionhealth/basics/ced/ fastfacts.htm. Accessed 2022, July 14. Cheng, Y., Chiang, H. C., & Ye, J. (2010). Enhancing empathy instruction using a collaborative virtual learning environment for children with autistic spectrum conditions. Computer & Education, 55(4), 1449–1458. Cohen, D. B. (2021). How accessibility tech could change the future. ATERA. https://www.atera. com/blog/how-­accessibility-­tech-­could-­change-­the-­future. Accessed 2022, June 21. Copley, J., & Ziviani, J. (2004). Barriers to the use of assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities. Occupational Therapy International, 11(4), 229–243. Council for Exceptional Children. (2005). Universal design for learning: A guide for teachers and education professionals. Pearson. De Brey, C., Snyder, T. D., Zhang, A., & Dillow, S. A. (2021). Digest of education statistics 2019. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2021/2021009.pdf. Accessed 2022, January 28. Diehl, J. J., Crowell, C. R., Villano, M., Wier, K. G., Tang, K., Van Ness, M., Flores, J., Freeman, T., Klinepeter, E. A., Matthews, S., Mazur, S. L., & Shea, N. M. (2013). The use of humanoid robots as co-therapists in ABA therapy for children with autism spectrum disorder. In 2013 International Meeting for Autism Research Conference. International Society for Autism Research, . Flores, M., Musgrove, K., Renner, S., Hinton, V., Strozier, S., Franklin, S., & Hil, D. (2012). A comparison of communication using the Apple iPad and a picture-based system. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28, 74–84. Frankenberger, C. (n.d.). Livescribe smartpen. The Yale Center for Dyslexia & Creativity. https:// dyslexia.yale.edu/resources/tools-­technology/tech-­tips/livescribe-­smartpen. Accessed 2022, June 16. Gierach, J. (Ed.). (2009). Assessing students’ needs for assistive technology (ASNAT): A resource manual for school district team (5th ed.). Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative. http:// www.wati.org/free-­publications/assessing-­students-­needs-­for-­assistive-­technology. Accessed 2022, July 16 Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-­ analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2, 3–51. Judge, S. L. (2000). Accessing and funding assistive technology for young children with disabilities. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28(2), 125–131.

References

73

Knight, V., Sartini, E., & Spriggs, A.  D. (2015). Evaluating visual activity schedules as an evidence-­based practice for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(1), 157–178. Levy, H. M. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction: Helping every child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House, 81, 161–164. Macias, M. (2022). Some light in the pandemic darkness. Enabling Devices. https://enablingdevices.com/blog/some-­light-­in-­the-­pandemic-­darkness. Accessed 2022, June 21. Maza, L. (2021). Examples of assistive technology in the classroom. Enabling Devices. https:// enablingdevices.com/blog/assistive-­technology-­in-­the-­classroom. Accessed 2022, June 9. Millar, D. C., Light, J. C., & Schlosser, R. W. (2006). The impact of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on the speech production of individuals with developmental disabilities: A research review. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 248–264. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. http://one2oneheights.pbworks.com/f/MISHRA_PUNYA.pdf. Accessed 2019, January 18. Myers, J., & Beach, R. (2004). Constructing critical literacy practices through technology tools and inquiry. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(3), 257–268. National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Students with disabilities. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg/ students-­with-­disabilities. Accessed 2022, June 18. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. (2021). Quick statistics about hearing. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-­statistics-­hearing. Accessed 2022, July 14. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. (n.d.). Quick statistics about voice, speech, language. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.nidcd. nih.gov/health/statistics/quick-­statistics-­voice-­speech-­language. Accessed 2022, July 14. Netherton, D. L., & Deal, W. F. (2006). Assistive technology in the classroom. The Technology Teacher. http://mhess1.pbworks.com/f/Assistive+Technology+in+the+Classroom+by+Nether ton.pdf. Accessed 2022, June 9. Nicolaou, C.  T., Nicolaidou, I.  A., Zacharia, Z.  C., & Constantinou, C.  P. (2007). Enhancing fourth graders’ ability to interpret graphical representations through the use of microcomputer-­ based labs implemented within an inquiry-based activity sequence. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 26, 75–99. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2021). 43rd annual report to congress on the implementation of the individuals with disabilities education act, 2021. O.S. Department of Education. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/43rd-­arc-­for-­idea.pdf. Accessed 2022, June 16. Otero, T. L., Schatz, R. B., Merrill, A. C., & Bellini, S. (2015). Social skills training for youth with autism spectrum disorders: A follow-up. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 24(1), 99–115. Patrick, M., & Barbareschi, G. (n.d.). Opportunities and challenges for disability inclusion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Global Disability Innovation Hub. https://www.disabilityinnovation.com/blog/opportunities-­and-­challenges-­for-­disability-­inclusion-­during-­the-­ covid-­19-­pandemic. Accessed 2022, June 21. Perelmutter, B., McGregor, K.  K., & Gordon, K.  R. (2017). Assistive technology interventions for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: An evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 114, 139–163. Schlosser, R.  W., & Wendt, O. (2009). Effects of augmentative and alternative communication intervention on speech production in children with autism: A systematic review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 212–230. Senland, A. (2014). Robots and autism spectrum disorder: Clinical and educational applications. In N. Silton (Ed.), Innovative technologies to benefit children on the autism spectrum (pp. 178–196). IGI Global.

74

4  Assistive Technology

Sullivan, J. (2019, February). Rethinking assistive technology. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia. org/article/rethinking-­assistive-­technology. Accessed 2022, June 19. U.S.  Department of Education. (2005). Education in the United States: A brief overview, Washington, D.C., 2005. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/edus/index. html. Accessed 2022, January 26. U.S.  Department of Education. (2019). Definition. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 1401. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-­chapter-­33/subchapter-­i/1401. Accessed 2022, June 8. University of Michigan-Dearborn. (n.d.). EDT 514–application of instructional design. Graduate catalog. http://catalog.umd.umich.edu/graduate/coursesaz/edt. Accessed 2022, August 19. Watson, S., & Johnston, L. (2007). Assistive technology in the inclusive science classroom. Science Teacher, 74(3), 34–39.

Chapter 5

Funding for Technology and the “Digital Divide”

A vicious cycle.

5.1 Introduction Digital technology resources such as computers, mobile devices, educational apps, the world wide web, and broadband Internet are available for educational use. The literature includes multiple terms to describe digital technology use in education. For instance, learning technologies, educational technology, instructional technology, and information communication technology (ICT) are among them. The present chapter uses these terms interchangeably, describing digital technology applications to enhance teaching, learning, and “creative inquiry.” Digital technology resources are readily available for some students and teachers in the U.S. K-12 education system, but some users are left with limited or no access. This gap is referred to as the “digital divide.” The present chapter aims to examine this critical issue. Public school funding in the U.S. comes from federal, state, and local sources. Fiscal managers consider all these funding sources for technology initiatives in their operational budgets. In most states, about 50% of the funding for public schools comes from local taxes, with local taxation prominent in the others. This structure creates a disparity between wealthy and impoverished communities (Biddle & Berliner, 2002). One would argue that inequities in funding for education in the U.S are the main factor attributing to the digital divide among varying states, school districts, and schools. This chapter first describes U.S. school funding with a specific emphasis on technology. Next, the author discusses the digital divide in its three forms: economic, usability, and empowerment. The writer then analyzes efforts to close the digital divide gap. Subsequently, the chapter revisits technology funding and the digital divide under the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, the writer summarizes the issues discussed and addresses their implications for policy and practices.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Duran, Learning Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18111-5_5

75

76

5  Funding for Technology and the “Digital Divide”

Three primary resources guide the discussions in this chapter. First, an extensive literature review pursues the chapter’s central focus—funding for technology and the digital divide—and includes studies published over the last two decades and accessed via multiple databases, journals, and available web resources. Second, also informing the chapter’s discussion are the author’s reflections on over 20 years of professional teaching experience focused on educational technology and conducted at a comprehensive U.S. research university. Significant published scholarship regarding technology integration in teacher preparation programs and trends and issues pertinent to educational technology augments this expert perspective further. And third, the observations and viewpoints of participants in a graduate-level online course called Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology enrich the chapter’s discussion. The course acquaints the students with research, trends, and issues facing education in the digital era, addressing a wide range of technological developments and investigating key topics concerning technology in the contemporary classroom (University of Michigan-Dearborn, n.d.). The author regularly teaches and collects data from this course, informing critical developments in funding for technology and the digital divide in the U.S. from the vital viewpoint of practicing teachers, extending to various changes affecting their schools and work.

5.2 Purpose of the Chapter The digital divide impacts the quality of educational experiences in schools. Inequity in funding for education in the U.S is considered the main factor attributed to the divide. Therefore, the present chapter first discusses the funding structure among U.S public schools. Making stakeholders familiar with funding for technology and its management among states, school districts, and individual schools is essential to understanding the context of the digital divide. Furthermore, funding for technology seems to lie at the heart of most avenues for solving the divide’s problems. Thus, understanding the funding issues sets the first stage for actions that need to be taken to address the issue. While framing the digital divide around the simple issue of “access,” it manifests itself in several forms (Nielsen, 2006; Roberts & Hernandez, 2019). Thus, the chapter aims to inform the readers about the different states of the digital divide that currently exists. This way, readers should better understand the complexities of the issue. Furthermore, bridging the divide is a long-term process, but legitimate change is possible if taken. Therefore, the chapter seeks to advise the readers about potential prospects for bridge-building. The COVID-19 pandemic unearthed the main concerns of this chapter once again when schools were forced to implement remote learning in early 2020. Therefore, the chapter revisits the funding for technology and digital divide issues that surfaced more during the recent pandemic. The latest discussion here strives to convey to the reader that, if not addressed, the digital divide interrupts the educational quality that at-risk students receive, putting them at an even more

5.3  Funding for Technology

77

disadvantage. In this way, the writer aims to bring readers’ attention to policy and practice implications.

5.3 Funding for Technology Education financing in the U.S. is highly decentralized, with funding made possible from multiple sources like federal, state, and local governments and private or non-­ government contributions. State and local governments provide the majority of funding for K-12 schools (90% as a national average), while the remaining (10%) comes from the federal government through grants or private contributors (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). State governments accumulate education funding from income, corporate, and sales taxes. On the other hand, local school districts mainly depend on property taxes (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). The DOE further noted that funding disparities exist due to property values varying in different communities. Therefore, some states supply additional funding to schools with limited resources to handle this issue through “equalization of funding” laws. In addition, the federal government gives additional funding to schools in disadvantaged areas through qualifying education programs. Specific to technology funding, varying leadership has committed significant resources at the federal level to extending U.S. students’ access to high-quality technology and the Internet. For instance, in 1996, President Bill Clinton advocated for the placement of modern computers and Internet access for every K-12 institution by 2000. He budgeted $2 billion over 5 years for the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund to help states implement the envisioned technology upgrades and Internet connections. (U.S.  Department of Education, 1997). Similarly, fast forward to 2013, President Barack Obama announced the ConnectED initiative to help with digital learning in schools. The project targeted broadband connections across the country and empowered teachers with the best technology and training available (U.S.  Department of Education Office of Educational Technology, 2013). More recently, the National Education Technology Plan included federal funding for technology (U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology, 2017). The plan highlighted that federal funds made available to states and school districts under specific initiatives and laws, such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, might be used for digital teaching and learning. Various federal agencies also regularly support educational technology initiatives through grants and contracts. Eligible schools and organizations can apply for and might receive federal assistance for specific funding opportunities, including but not limited to educational technology. A national site, www.grants.gov, provides a hub for grant funding opportunities. State and local grant opportunities are often issued by states’ legislative offices and local school jurisdictions. As a result, funding for technology at the state level

78

5  Funding for Technology and the “Digital Divide”

reflects varying and sometimes markedly degrees of commitment. Some states, such as Maine, Delaware, and Idaho, have made substantial state-level commitments and provided numerous devices and connectivity boosts. Other states, such as Oklahoma and Indiana, have required particular levels of digital access for assessment, relying primarily on local districts to determine strategies to reach identified goals (U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology, n.d.). In the context of the U.S. education system, generally, local funds are the most flexible concerning technology funding, under which allowable uses can often include supply and equipment allocations in technology resources. Varying forms of local financing are used for educational technology. Proposals for increased local technology-related school spending are sometimes placed on ballots contingent on voter approval. In addition to federal, state, and local sources, corporate donors like the Gates Foundation (Bill and Melinda), Cisco Systems Inc., and Microsoft Corporation have expressed willingness to fund technology projects where impacts can be directly observed. In addition, micro-funding through school- and classroom-­ specific grants comprise another funding source. Crowdfunding organizations like GoFundMe, Donors Choose, Class Wish, and Adopt-a-Classroom facilitate individual donations that teachers utilize to get classroom materials, including but not limited to technology tools (EdSurge, n.d.).

5.4 The Digital Divide Starting in the early 1990s, the digital divide issue received attention among scholars, educators, policymakers, and other observers. For instance, Stanford University highlighted the growing gap between the disadvantaged members (e.g., the poor, rural, elderly) who did not have access to computers or the Internet and the wealthy, middle-class, and young Americans living in urban and suburban cities who had access (Stanford University, 1992). As technology changed and evolved over the years and became a significant part of people’s lives, work, and study, others highlighted that the digital divide is more profound than simple access (Nielsen, 2006; Roberts & Hernandez, 2019). Instead, the authors pointed out a social issue referring to the differences in resources and capabilities to access and effectively utilize information and communication technologies. Nielsen (2006), for instance, discussed “the three stages” of the digital divide: the“economic divide,” “usability divide,” and “empowerment divide.” Nielsen argued that the digital divide is currently most clearly reflected in the “fact that certain parts of the population have substantially better opportunities to benefit from the new economy than other parts.” In addition, Nielson contended that while the economic divide may be shrinking in many instances, continuing usability and empowerment divides still alienate a large population who miss out on the educational potential that digital tools provide.

5.4  The Digital Divide

79

Similarly, Roberts and Hernandez (2019) argued that “digital access is not binary” to define it as connected or disconnected. Instead, the authors highlighted some social and political factors that impact technology access by breaking access into five interrelated components of “availability, affordability, awareness, ability, and agency” (the 5’A’s). The following section discusses various types of digital dive and their implications in education.

5.4.1 Economic Divide Nielsen (2006) argued that in its simplest form, “the digital divide presents itself in the way that some people can’t afford to buy a computer or Internet connection.” Likewise, Roberts and Hernandez (2019) pronounced the economic divide in “Affordability”–to whom technology access is available but not affordable–in their 5’A’s of Technology Access consideration. According to a 2013 study by the Pew Research Center, the cost of technology purchases is becoming a less apparent issue in the U.S. Yet, over five million households with school-aged children do not have access to high-speed Internet service (Horrigan, 2015). In other words, the author reported that 31.4% of all families with an annual income under $50,000 lack a high-speed connection at home. The study also highlighted that as yearly income increases, the percentage with high-speed Internet at home dramatically increases. Another aspect of this general disparity pertains to race and ethnicity. African American and Hispanic households, having higher proportions of children living within lower-income ranges, have less access to high-speed Internet by about ten percentage points than white households with children within the same income range. Asian Americans with children, by contrast, exceed the other groups in household broadband access, regardless of income level (Horrigan, 2015). According to an Obama-era Issue Brief from the Council of Economic Advisors (2015), data show that the lowest Internet adoption rates occur in areas in the South, rural areas, or inner cities. Not coincidentally, these areas are statistically more likely to be affected by poverty, thus acquiring the technology. In contrast, according to the Brief, the western and northeastern United States possess the highest Internet access rates, given their status as statistically more affluent regions. Then, it appears there is a positive correlation between household income and Internet usage and access, highlighting the first type of issue faced within the digital divide discussed here: the economic divide. Lower-income households do not tend to expend more affluent families’ income on purchasing technology. In the U.S., the average household income was $59,039 in 2016 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017). Even though lower-income Americans have made gains in technology adoption in recent years, payment remains the most comprehensible rationale for not being able to afford digital technology or having Internet access at home. Anderson (2017) compared households with different incomes and technology usage and highlighted that about 30% of adults with family incomes below $30,000

80

5  Funding for Technology and the “Digital Divide”

a year do not own a smartphone. Nearly half do not have high-speed Internet access at home or a desktop computer. And a majority of lower-income Americans do not have tablets. However, many of these technologies exist for families whose yearly earnings meet or exceed the $100,000 threshold. Similarly, a recent Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults highlighted that the digital resources of Americans with lower and higher incomes remained markedly different and did not significantly change since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019 (Vogels, 2021).

5.4.2 Usability Divide Nielsen (2006) argued that a second aspect of the digital divide is a usability divide, asserting that this problem is more critical than the economic divide because complicated technologies prevent ease from use even if individuals can afford access. As a result, the author asserted, many simply cannot achieve the digital world’s full benefits in light of this issue. Nielsen stressed that “lower literacy is the web’s biggest accessibility problem,” arguing that most websites, including government sites, do not follow the guidelines to properly serve low-literacy users, which includes about 40% of the population. In addition, Nielsen pointed out that understanding the text written on most websites requires university-level comprehension. Nielsen further highlighted that senior citizens face the second-biggest accessibility problem because most websites are not amenable for older users as they are, in contrast, for younger generations. In their consideration, Roberts and Hernandez (2019) articulated the usability divide in the “Ability” category of the 5’As of Technology Access–a person’s limited ability to use technology effectively due to a lack of digital literacy and skills or knowledge. The authors emphasized that this is especially critical where technology does not fully serve marginalized groups, such as gender norms of a particular technology not representing a full spectrum of the society.

5.4.3 Empowerment Divide According to Nielsen (2006), while there are straightforward ways to solve the first two stages of the digital divide, stage three, the empowerment divide, provides the most significant challenge. As Nielsen argued, this is because empowerment goes beyond just using and feeling comfortable with technology but instead involves encompassing and using each piece of technology to its fullest potential. Nielsen maintained that “participation inequality is one exponent of the empowerment divide that has held constant throughout all the years of Internet growth: in social networks and community systems, about 90% of users don’t contribute, 9% contribute sporadically, and a tiny minority of 1% accounts for most contributions.” Nielsen also noted that many people do not understand how to use search engines

5.5  Prospect for Bridge Building

81

effectively. Therefore, the author asserted, many users do not understand the difference between the “information” they obtain from the web and the underlying “knowledge” the web enables—a processed form of available information. Roberts and Hernandez (2019) described the empowerment divide in the “Agency” discussion of the 5’As of Technology Access–one who presents self-­ efficacy to use a particular technology. The authors explained that agency refers to how a person feels capable of acting as a means of bringing about change in some way. Roberts and Hernandez indicated that those who consider themselves “digital citizens” and use technology as the active participant in promoting positive change are different users than those passive recipients of information available through varying technology channels. In other words, the authors argued that agency might remain a challenging barrier for those marginalized groups even if “civic technologies” are available and affordable and usage is not restricted.

5.5 Prospect for Bridge Building Steele (2018) asserted that the digital divide’s adverse effect on the education sector is visible. The author further argued that the digital divide affects education, such as low performance, unfair competitive edge, and decreased productivity. In addition, Vega (2011) similarly argued that one out of five children is less likely to develop digital literacy skills without access to digital technology resources. Thus, the author pointed out that the future generation will have challenges thriving in the modern economy and participating in a globally connected society. Therefore, there have been multiple initiatives to address the digital dive. As discussed in an Issue Brief from the Council of Economic Advisors (2015), “closing the gap between those who experience these social and economic benefits from Internet use, and those who don’t will require further efforts to reduce barriers in affordability, relevance, and computer literacy” (p.  9). Upgrading connectivity infrastructure, training teachers, and building on private-sector innovation are other prospects to address the digital divide. Highlighting a recent development in the connectivity area, Mollenkamp (2022) argued that satellite broadband seems to hold a potential solution to the digital divide, expanding high-speed internet access for the nation’s students, including those historically marginalized communities. In addition, a recent report from Common Sense Media (2021) emphasized the importance of understanding the root causes of the digital divide. The report highlighted three root causes: “affordability, availability, and adoption” (p.5). Findings of the report indicated that 6 out of 10 disconnected K–12 students could not afford digital access. Totaling nine million students in this group are predominantly African-American and urban. In addition, 1 out of 4 disconnected students lacks access to readily available and reliable Internet service. A total of four million students in this category are disproportionately rural and Native American. Finally, considerable adoption barriers like low

82

5  Funding for Technology and the “Digital Divide”

digital literacy or language barrier impact 4 out of 10 disconnected students, totaling six million. Educators and policymakers confront a stubbornly persistent need to close this divide across the country. Funding for technology in schools, increasing connectivity for students at school and home, and augmenting attention to digital literacy in the classroom comprise primary vehicles for addressing this continuing need. The U.S.  Department of Education Office of Educational Technology (n.d.) recommended that “to provide the best access to students and educators, leading states and districts must think comprehensively about all funding and support.” In addition to federal, state, and local funding, other opportunities, according to the same reference, include but are not limited to grants, public-private partnerships, device refurbishment, and “bring your own device” methods. Teachers, schools, and districts are encouraged to use their potential connections within the community and parental organizations. As Common Sense Media (2021) put it aptly, education stakeholders, including public, private, and social sectors, must work together for a successful outcome. The report highlighted that this collaborative effort first assesses student needs, followed by an effective broadband strategy, availability of affordable solutions, and IT support.

5.6 Digital Divide Under COVID-19 Pandemic The digital divide has gained special attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, as much schooling moved to remote learning in early 2020. Mahnken (2020) reported that more than 50 million students received education beyond the physical school building during the first year of the pandemic. He also argued that the inequity of broadband Internet connection through the last four presidents in the U.S. left schools unprepared for the pandemic. For instance, Connected Nation (2020) reported that 67% of K-12 schools nationwide lack the recommended internet connectivity speed of 1 megabit per student–a bandwidth gap that affects 31.5 million students. In addition, a recent study found that the states with the highest percentage of students unable to access technology in the home are adequate for remote learning (Lieberman, 2020). Given the challenges faced, Mahnken’s interview highlighted a sense of frustration among educators and IT leaders, as delivered in the following commentary: They need to get learning into the homes of these kids. We haven’t been thinking creatively. If the Department of Health can set up tents in Central Park with hospital beds and air systems and drive-up testing sites, and we can’t find ways to promote internet access for our kids to get online for school, then we’ve failed.—Nicol Turner-Lee, a fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center for Technology Innovation.

In addition, a new report found that the digital divide has persisted since the pandemic’s beginning (Vogels, 2021). The report highlighted that about 60% of lower-income U.S. families faced multiple obstacles to educating their children in

5.6  Digital Divide Under COVID-19 Pandemic

83

the new digital environment. For example, reference obstacles induced unreliable internet at home and no computer to complete remote schoolwork. Recently, Ma (2022) reported on another study where concerns about the digital divide among students continued during the coronavirus surge. The referenced study found that the internet and computer access rate for low-income families with young children increased in 2021. Still, these families with unreliable or insufficient internet access rates were roughly unchanged. The U.S. federal government established the $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund to address the pandemic (U.S. Department of the Treasury, n.d.). Further, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act enacted in 2020 made new federal revenue sources available to school districts through the fund. For instance, the school districts in the State of Michigan received an additional 350 dollars in funding per student (Michigan Department of Education, n.d.). In addition, Jargon (2020) reported that thirty-nine states initiated plans to utilize federal coronavirus relief funds to address the digital divide for about 16 million students. Finally, in November of 2021, another national fund was made available, with President Joe Biden signing a 1 trillion infrastructure bill into law. The package included $65 billion for expanding broadband Internet access, which was considered a priority concern (Pramuk, 2021). In addition to federal initiatives, individual states have addressed the digital disparity. For example, Mississippi initiated the “Mississippi Connects” program (Peters-Hinton, 2021). The state allocated 200 million dollars to cover the gaps in technology and Internet coverage over the state. In addition, the program focuses on a technology-integrated curriculum, teacher professional development, and virtual programs to support students’ physical and socioemotional health. California’s “Students Connected” initiative was another state-wide example of closing the digital divide (Smith, 2021). The program’s goal was to help school districts to assist at-risk students in getting a reliable broadband Internet connection at home by the fall of 2021. Multiple findings guided the program. For example, referencing a U.S. Census Bureau report (2021), Smith pointed out that 1 out of 5 households in the state with K–12 students had challenges with remote learning due to insufficient Internet access. Citing another report (Ong, 2020), Smith addressed that the situation was especially difficult for Black and Latino students, who were likelier to have limited Internet access. In addition to federal and state initiatives, the “Chicago Connected” program represents how community-based organizations are critical in addressing the digital divide (Koumpilova, 2021). The joint program included the city of Chicago, philanthropies, and internet companies. Koumpilova reported that more than 36,560 families signed up for the program, representing nearly 55,000 students. Officials anticipated reaching 100,000 learners by the end of the 2020–2021 academic year. Federal, state, and local initiatives toward closing the digital divide’s access issue during the pandemic have been encouraging. A recent report from Common Sense Media (2021) indicated that current efforts narrowed, averaging 30% of the K–12 connectivity divide and 50% of the digital device divide as of December 2020. Yet, affordability and infrastructure persisted as the main issues. For example, Klein

84

5  Funding for Technology and the “Digital Divide”

(2021) noted that affordability rather than infrastructure is the most significant reason for home internet access, even in cases where federal government funding has been available to close the digital divide. The author asserted that about two-thirds of households without home Internet access could connect. Still, the writer referenced the cost is a barrier, according to a report released by the nonprofit EducationSuperHighway. The report highlighted that only about 17% of eligible people enrolled in federal broadband affordability programs. Other studies noted that broadband Internet access is still a significant problem, particularly in rural areas (Anakwe et al., 2021; Nadworny, 2021). Peters-Hinton’s (2021) commentary summarizes the discussion about the digital divide surge under the COVID-19 pandemic. The author argued that it is vital to recognize that “the digital divide is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon…experiences of digital access exist along a continuum.” For example, the author noted that a student’s digital device ownership is impaired if they need to share it with a family member. Similarly, Peters-Hinton argued that accessing the Internet is critical but might be insufficient if broadband speed cannot handle streaming video for remote learning. Finally, the author concluded that it would be difficult to talk about progress until a joint effort between stakeholders, including public, private, and social sectors, is in effect—an effort that seems to have started when the pandemic began. However, as Common Sense Media (2021) report argued, the sustainability issue remains to be seen. The report highlighted that the digital divide gap generally tightened during the coronavirus pandemic, with more students gaining access to digital devices and connectivity. Yet, the report reminded us that most state and local efforts to bridge the digital divide (75%) are scheduled to expire in the next 1–3 years. The report concluded that we still talk about the digital divide during the post-pandemic era if stakeholders do not take action now.

5.7 Conclusion Given the historical context and recent developments, funding for technology and the digital divide discussion presented in this chapter bring multiple critical topics to the education stakeholders’ attention as they present policy and practice implications. In summarizing the contemporary perspective on and attention to the digital divide, funding for technology lies at the heart of most avenues for solving the divide’s problems. Inequity in funding for education in the U.S is considered the main factor attributing to the digital divide among states, school districts, and individual schools. If not addressed, the digital divide interrupts the educational quality that at-risk students receive, putting them at an even more disadvantage, where the vicious cycle continues. The digital divide surge during the recent COVID-19 pandemic should be a wake-up call to education stakeholders. Yet, as Steele (2018) put it aptly, “the education factor in the digital divide is like the dilemma of egg and chicken: both are interrelated, and knowing which one precipitate the other is difficult.”

References

85

The digital divide manifests itself in several forms- the easy-to-solve economic divide, the more complicated usability divide, and the puzzling empowerment divide. While overcoming these divides will not happen overnight, understanding the root causes of the digital divide–affordability, availability, and adoption–is the first step in the right direction. In addition, breaking down silos among education stakeholders, focusing on members of society with lower levels of education, those living in low-income households, or even those affected by the demographic difference, together create capacity that can make change possible. Reflections posted in the Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology course discussion by an early childhood education teacher during the fall 2018 semester give a nice closure to the arguments presented in this chapter: I wonder how the digital divide will be perceived in another decade or so. We seemed to have moved in a positive direction in addressing the gap as it stood originally, increasing the quantity of technology in the hands of users. Now, we want to focus on the quality of how those users are using the technology. We want technology to be used as a tool to effectively aid and assist people in creating, completing tasks, and achieving goals…We know technology is going to continue to thrive, grow, and adapt as time goes on. We need to provide our students with the proper opportunities to foster meaningful learning through technology, so they can be prepared to lead us into the future. We cannot do this ourselves without the proper training and funding. We have to think about what are the priorities in education. What are we sending our students into, and how can we make it, so they have purposeful experiences? If we ask ourselves these questions, we are on our way to continue closing the digital divide gap.

References Anakwe, A., Majee, W., Noel-London, K., Zachary, I., and BeLue, R. 2021. Sink or swim: Virtual life challenges among African American families during COVID-19 lockdown. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 4290, p. 1–12. https://www.mdpi. com/1660-­4601/18/8/4290/htm. Accessed 16 Feb 2022. Anderson, M. (2017). Digital divide persists even as lower-income Americans make gains in tech adoption. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-­tank/2017/03/22/digital-­ divide-­persists-­even-­as-­lower-­income-­americans-­make-­gains-­in-­tech-­adoption. Accessed 18 Jan 2019 Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). A research synthesis/unequal school funding in the United States. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 48–59. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/-­unequal-­ school-­funding-­in-­the-­united-­states. Accessed 18 Jan 2019 Common Sense Media. (2021). Looking back, looking forward: What it will take to permanently close the K–12 digital divide. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/featured-­ content/files/final_-­_what_it_will_take_to_permanently_close_the_k-­12_digital_divide_ vfeb3.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2022. Connected Nation. (2020). Connected K-12. https://connectednation.org/wp-­content/ uploads/2020/11/Connect-­K12_final.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2022. Council of Economic Advisers Issue Brief. 2015. Mapping the digital divide. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/wh_digital_divide_issue_brief.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019.

86

5  Funding for Technology and the “Digital Divide”

EdSurge. (n.d.). Crowdfunding in K-12: Developing a vision that informs policy. https://go.edsurge. com/rs/590-­LFO-­179/images/Crowdfunding%20Report%20in%20K-­12.pdf. Accessed 5 Sept 2019. Horrigan, J.  B. (2015). The numbers behind the broadband “homework gap”. http://www. pewresearch.org/fact-­tank/2015/04/20/the-­numbers-­behind-­the-­broadband-­homework-­gap. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Jargon, J. (2020). Schools work to speed up internet in rural homes for remote learning. https:// www.wsj.com/articles/schools-­w ork-­t o-­s peed-­u p-­i nternet-­i n-­r ural-­h omes-­f or-­r emote-­ learning-­11608037202. Accessed 16 Feb 2022. Klein, A. (2021). The number one reason students still lack internet at home: Parents can’t afford it. https://www.edweek.org/technology/the-­number-­one-­reason-­students-­still-­lack-­internet-­at-­ home-­parents-­cant-­afford-­it/2021/11. Accessed 16 Feb 2022. Koumpilova, M. (2021). Chicago helped 55,000 students get free internet. Much work remains. https://chicago.chalkbeat.org/2021/1/12/22227642/chicago-­helped-­55000-­students-­get-­free-­ internet-­much-­work-­remains. Accessed 16 Feb 2022. Lieberman, M. (2020). Which states have the biggest home internet access gaps for students? https://www.edweek.org/technology/which-­states-­have-­the-­biggest-­home-­internet-­access-­ gaps-­for-­students/2020/10. Accessed 16 Feb 2022. Ma. A. 2022. A digital divide haunts schools adapting to virus hurdles. https://apnews. com/article/coronavirus-­p andemic-­t echnology-­h ealth-­e ducation-­d igital-­d ivide-­ f9e1d27e72c15a25d10a63462edf12cb. Accessed 16 Feb 2022. Mahnken, K. (2020). An education system, divided: How internet inequity persisted through 4 presidents and left schools unprepared for the pandemic. https://www.the74million.org/article/ an-­education-­system-­divided-­how-­internet-­inequity-­persisted-­through-­4-­presidents-­and-­left-­ schools-­unprepared-­for-­the-­pandemic. Accessed 16 Feb 2020. Michigan Department of Education. (n.d.). CARES act and coronavirus relief fund (CRF) information. https://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,4615,7-­140-­6605-­537428%2D%2D,00.html. Accessed 16 Feb 2022. Mollenkamp, D. (2022). Satellite broadband is expanding. Can that reduce the digital divide? https://www.edsurge.com/news/2022-­0 2-­2 2-­s atellite-­b roadband-­i s-­expanding-­c an-­t hat-­ reduce-­the-­digital-­divide. Accessed 2 June 2022. Nadworny, E. (2021). Students are still struggling to get internet. The infrastructure law could help. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/15/1053917252/infrastructure-­bill-­broadband-­internet-­ rural-­college-­students. Accessed 16 Feb 2022. Nielsen, J. (2006). Digital divide: The 3 stages. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/digital-­divide-­ the-­three-­stages. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Ong, P. M. (2020). Covid-19 and the digital divide in virtual learning fall 2020. https://knowledge. luskin.ucla.edu/wp-­content/uploads/2020/12/Digital-­Divide-­Phase2_brief_release_v01.pdf. Accessed 16 Feb 2020. Peters-Hinton, V. (2021). The universal laptop program helping one state narrow the digital divide. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-­10-­05-­the-­universal-­laptop-­program-­helping-­one-­state-­ narrow-­the-­digital-­divide. Accessed 16 Feb 2022. Pramuk, J. (2021). Biden signs $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill into law, unlocking funds for transportation, broadband, utilities. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/15/biden-­signing-­1-­ trillion-­bipartisan-­infrastructure-­bill-­into-­law.html. Accessed 16 Feb 2022. Roberts, T. and Hernandez, K. 2019. Digital access is not binary: The 5’A’s of technology access in the Philippines. https://www.ictworks.org/wp-­content/uploads/2019/02/5a-­technology-­access. pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2022. Smith, R. (2021). Every student in California should have high-speed internet access. Here’s how we can get there by fall 2021. https://edsource.org/2021/every-­student-­in-­california-­should-­ have-­high-­speed-­internet-­access-­heres-­how-­we-­can-­get-­there-­by-­fall-­2021/658736. Accessed 16 Feb 2022.

References

87

Stanford University. (1992). Digital divide. https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/ digital-­divide/start.html. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Steele, C. (2018). 5 ways the digital divide effects education. http://www.digitaldividecouncil.com/ digital-­divide-­effects-­on-­education. Accessed 14 Feb 2022. University of Michigan-Dearborn. (n.d.). EDT 501–research, trends, and issues in educational technology. Graduate catalog. http://catalog.umd.umich.edu/graduate/coursesaz/edt. Accessed 19 Aug 2022. U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2016. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-­releases/2017/income-­povery.html. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). Week 27 household pulse survey: March 17–March 29. https://www. census.gov/data/tables/2021/demo/hhp/hhp27.html. Accessed 16 Feb 2022. U.S.  Department of Education. (2005). Education in the United States: A brief overview, Washington, D.C., 2005. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/edus/index. html. Accessed 26 Jan 2022. U.  S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (1997). Investing in school technology: Strategies to meet the funding challenge. https://www2.ed.gov/PDFDocs/tech4b. pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. U.  S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2013). Expanding evidence approaches for learning in a digital world. https://tech.ed.gov/wp-­content/uploads/2014/11/ Expanding-­Evidence.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. U. S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017 national education technology plan update. Accessed 5 Sept 2019. U. S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (n.d.). Funding digital learning. https://tech.ed.gov/funding. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. U.S. Department of the Treasury. (n.d.). Coronavirus relief fund. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-­ issues/coronavirus/assistance-­for-­state-­local-­and-­tribal-­governments/coronavirus-­relief-­ fund#:~:text=Through%20the%20Coronavirus%20Relief%20Fund,%24150%20billion%20 Coronavirus%20Relief%20Fund. Accessed 16 Feb 2022. Vega, V. (2011). Digital literacy is the bedrock for lifelong learning. https://www.edutopia.org/ blog/digital-­divide-­technology-­internet-­access-­literacy-­vanessa-­vega. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Vogels, E.A. 2021. Digital divide persists even as Americans with lower incomes make gains in tech adoption. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-­tank/2021/06/22/digital-­divide-­persists-­ even-­as-­americans-­with-­lower-­incomes-­make-­gains-­in-­tech-­adoption. Accessed 12 Feb 2022.

Chapter 6

Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

Collective responsibility.

6.1 Introduction A variety of digital technology resources is available for educational use. The list includes but is not limited to computers, mobile devices, educational apps, the world wide web, and broadband Internet. The academic literature includes multiple terms to describe digital technology use in education, such as learning technologies, instructional technology, educational technology, and information communication technology (ICT). The present chapter uses these terms interchangeably, describing digital technology applications to enhance teaching, learning, and “creative inquiry.” Even though educators are not expected to assume a legal expert role, they must be aware of a general understanding of educational technology’s legal and ethical issues. Therefore, the present chapter first describes legal issues, addressing plagiarism, copyright and fair use, and safety and privacy. Next, the chapter explores ethical issues, covering netiquette, cyberbullying, objectionable materials, and educational control. Finally, the chapter summarizes the critical issues discussed and addresses the implications for policy and practices. Three primary resources guided the discussions in this chapter. First, an extensive literature review through multiple databases, journals, and available web resources focused on the chapter’s central theme—legal and ethical issues in educational technology. Second, the author’s reflections on over 20 years of professional teaching experience at a comprehensive U.S. research university on educational technology also inform the chapter’s discussion. Significant published scholarship regarding technology integration in teacher preparation programs and trends and issues pertinent to educational technology further augments this expert perspective. And third, the observations and viewpoints of participants in a graduate-level online course called Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology enrich the chapter’s discussion. The course acquaints the students with research, trends, and © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Duran, Learning Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18111-5_6

89

90

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

issues facing education in the digital era, addressing a wide range of technological developments and investigating key topics concerning technology in the contemporary classroom (University of Michigan-Dearborn, n.d.). The author regularly teaches and collects data from this course. The vital viewpoint of practicing teachers who take the course offers the perspective from the field as they experience the critical developments concerning legal and ethical issues of learning technologies in their schools and their work.

6.2 Purpose of the Chapter Since its early adoption, technology integration in education has brought multiple legal and ethical issues to the attention of educators. Therefore, this chapter examines the critical concepts related to legal and ethical issues in educational technology. As Lagola (2021) argued, educating teachers and parents on the substance of these issues is vital because they can also protect themselves as they model proper use for their students. The education community’s potential legal issues include plagiarism, copyright, fair use, and safety and privacy. Thus, the chapter aims to inform the readers about these legal issues. This way, the writer seeks to assist the audience in addressing these issues as they present themselves in schools. Similar to legal issues, ethical issues in educational technology have long been considered essential topics. Potential issues include netiquette, cyberbullying, objectionable materials, and educational control. The chapter aims to educate the reader about these topics. Understanding these issues will help educators comprehend their responsibilities and set student expectations. Finally, the chapter summarizes the critical issues addressed and discusses the implications for policy and practices. This way, the readers will understand the best practices and working strategies, thus making informed decisions about educational technology’s legal and ethical issues.

6.3 Legal Issues in Educational Technology Since early technology integration in education, legal issues in educational technology have been important. Therefore, educators should retain a general understanding of these issues and address them in schools. The education community’s potential legal issues include plagiarism, copyright and fair use, safety and privacy. The following section provides further discussions on these topics.

6.3  Legal Issues in Educational Technology

91

6.3.1 Plagiarism Plagiarism seems self-explanatory, but for some, particularly for K-12 students, it may not be as simple as it sounds. In addition, plagiarism is an often misunderstood problem that primarily emerges from a lack of knowledge and skills (plagairism. org, 2017). According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, plagiarism is “to steal and pass off someone else’s work as their own” (Merriam-­webster.com, n.d.). As the definition depicts, contrary to how some popularly consider plagiarism to be “copying” or “borrowing,” it is instead more accurately a form of “fraud,” which involves both “stealing” another person’s original work and subsequently “lying” about the act (plagairism.org, 2017). Lesisko et  al. (2018) argued that if not addressed, plagiarism affects three significant stakeholders: the school system and educators, students and parents, and authors and publishers. Morrow (2009) emphasized that even though plagiarism is not a criminal or civil offense, it becomes illegal if it infringes someone’s intellectual property rights, such as copyright or trademark. According to plagairism.org (2017), all of the following situations are plagiarism: • • • • •

turning in someone else’s work as your own copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit failing to put a quotation in quotation marks giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit • copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not The above statements might raise a question concerning if “words” and “ideas” can be stolen. The U.S. law for this question is clear; the answer is yes (plagairism.org, 2017). Plagiarism.org further clarified that expressing one’s original idea is considered “intellectual property” and is protected by copyright laws, similar to original inventions. Not only words and ideas but also other forms of expressions fall under copyright protection, including images, videos, and music. plagairism.org (2017) listed the following activities as plagiarism if permission is not granted or citation is not given: • Copying media (especially images) from other websites to paste them into your own papers or websites • Making a video using footage from others’ videos or using copyrighted music as part of the soundtrack • Performing another person’s copyrighted music (i.e., playing a cover) • Composing a piece of music that borrows heavily from another composition Particularly for educators, media use in the classroom becomes a challenging determination concerning whether copyright laws are correctly followed. In general, the legality of the situation would depend on the intent and context within which the

92

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

media is used, which is further discussed in the following Sect. 6.3.2 (Copyright and Fair Use). The U.S. report card for plagiarism in K-12 education still presents a challenging situation for educators and administrators, even though data seems to suggest an improvement on this issue over the years. For example, a large-scale study conducted over two decades ago with more than 70,000 participants pointed out that 58% of high school students committed plagiarism (McCabe, 1999). Eleven years later, a Josephson Institute of Ethics study surveyed 43,000 high school students and found that the nation was doing a relatively better job concerning plagiarism. For example, 1 out of 3 students admitted that they plagiarized an assignment using the Internet (Challenge Success, 2012). Reflecting on the research findings above and similar other small-scale studies with K-12 students, Challenge Success (2012) suggested strategies for educators and parents to promote academic integrity. The following list includes what educators should do: • • • • •

Strive for school-wide buy-in for integrity and honest academic practices Emphasize mastery and learning rather than performance and grades Establish a climate of care in your classroom Revise assessment and grading policies Reduce workload without reducing rigor

In addition to the strategies for educators, Challenge Success (2012) recommend the following approaches for parents: • • • • •

Model integrity and maintain high standards for honesty Watch how you talk about grades Avoid using external rewards for schoolwork Encourage positive school identity and belonging Respond appropriately if your child is accused of cheating

Graduate students with teaching experiences in the Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology course regularly point out that many K-12 schools in the U.S. have rigorous policies about plagiarism and offer ongoing education and resources for plagiarism prevention. Yet, they also express that focusing on the issue’s root causes is equally essential. The following reflection from a student who took the course in the fall of 2018 represents the feelings of many other practitioners: ...Yes, it is important to teach students not to plagiarize, but it’s equally important to teach the time management skills and essay writing tips like citing work and paraphrasing to help them avoid the plagiarism route.

The scholarly literature has limited studies concerning the root causes of plagiarism in K-12 schools. However, similar to the reflections above, experienced teachers highlighted a lack of confidence, time management skills, and interest in the assigned work as the underlying causes (Berryhill, 2019).

6.3  Legal Issues in Educational Technology

93

In addition to the strategies discussed above, advanced technology tools have also become helpful for plagiarism prevention, particularly during the last two decades. Turnitin, an Internet-based plagiarism detection tool, is a prime example. Utilized by over 30 million students at 15,000 institutions in 140 countries around the world, Turnitin provided educators with tools that increase students’ engagement with the writing process, offer personalized feedback, and evaluate students’ long-term writing improvements (turnitin.com, n.d.). In 2015, Turnitin published a study based on an eight-year period where they analyzed more than 36 million student papers from 2862 U.S. high schools (Turnitin, 2015). The study findings highlighted a 33% reduction in unoriginal content in student writing. Moreover, 43 out of 50 states that participated in the study showed improved writing originality scores. Of those, 21 states exhibited improved writing during their second year of Turnitin. Even though technologies like Turnitin present a new way to prevent plagiarism in schools, it appears that teaching about plagiarism in the digital age will never end. We seem to experience an interesting cycle and dilemma. Digital technologies offer varying advantages to students as they quickly access a wealth of information to learn anytime and anywhere. Still, easy access appears to permit students to participate in behaviors like plagiarism contrary to educational goals. Consequently, we create another technology tool like Turnitin to prevent such conduct as the cycle continues. But, then, emerging technologies bring other challenges to our attention. For instance, a recent call for papers from the International Journal for Educational Integrity titled “Machine-based plagiarism: The death of originality in the digital age” mimics what lies ahead–Internet-based text-processing applications such as paraphrasing tools, translation software, and “article spinners” that can mislead students into thinking that these tools are helping them to create original writing, introducing another area for a new form of plagiarism (International Journal for Educational Integrity, n.d.).

6.3.2 Copyright and Fair Use Lagola (2021) argued that the U.S.’s copyright and fair use laws are “nuanced” and carry potential fines and other penalties if educators fail to comply. The author explained that technology has made it easier for educators to share materials and possibly opened the door for possible breaches. For instance, the Houston school district in Texas was fined 9.2 million dollars due to some district employees violating federal copyright laws by repeatedly misusing study guides published by a local company–DynaStudy, Inc. (AP News, 2019). Even though such cases are rare, paying attention to fair use and copyright details can protect educators and their school districts. Therefore, discussions in the following section examine the copyright and fair use and offer suggestions to avoid potential violations. In the U.S., copyright refers to the structure of protection provided by the country to authors of “original works of authorship” from the time the works are created

94

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

in a “fixed” form (U.S. Copyrights Office, 2019). This protection is unrestricted regardless of the author’s nationality or permanent residency status (Copyright Clearing Center, 2020). The U.S. Copyright Office describes the original work of authorship and fixed form in the following way: An original work of authorship is a work that is independently created by a human author and possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. A work is fixed when it is captured (either by or under the authority of an author) in a sufficiently permanent medium such that the work can be perceived, reproduced, or communicated for more than a short time.

Copyright protection in the U.S. becomes automatic when the original work of authorship is fixed (U.S. Copyrights Office, 2019). As listed by the Copyright Clearing Center (2020), Table 6.1 below presents what is protected and is not covered by copyright: The U.S. Copyrights Office (2019) described the following as the “copyright owner’s rights.” The Copyrights Office further explained that the copyright owner Table 6.1  What is protected and is not covered by copyright? Protected by Copyright Literary works (all works expressed in writing both in print and digital form, however formally or informally recorded) Computer software (considered to be literary works)

Pictorial, graphic and sculptural works (e.g., paintings, drawings, carvings, photographs, clothing designs, textiles) Architectural works (e.g., buildings themselves as well as blueprints, drawings, diagrams and models)

Not Covered by Copyright Works that have not been fixed in a tangible medium of expression (that is, not written, recorded, or captured electronically) Titles, names, short phrases and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation or illustration Works consisting entirely of information that are natural or self-evident facts, containing no original authorship, such as the white pages of telephone books, standard calendars, height and weight charts, and tape measures and rulers. Works created by the U.S. Government

Sound recordings (e.g., songs, music, spoken word, sounds, and other recordings) Audiovisual works (e.g., live-action Works for which copyright has expired; works in the movies, animation, television programs, public domain and video games) Pantomimes and choreographic works (e.g., the art of imitating or acting out situations, and the composition of dance movements and patterns, including those accompanied by music) Dramatic works and accompanying music (e.g., plays and musicals Adopted from Copyright Clearing Center (2020)

6.3  Legal Issues in Educational Technology

95

also has the right to authorize others to carry out the rights listed below, subject to certain statutory limitations. • Reproduce the work in copies or phono records • Prepare derivative works based upon the work • Distribute copies or phono records of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending • Perform the work publicly if it is a literary, musical, dramatic, or choreographic work; a pantomime; or a motion picture or other audiovisual work • Display the work publicly if it is a literary, musical, dramatic, or choreographic work; a pantomime; or a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. This right also applies to the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work. • Perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission if the work is a sound recording There are exceptions to copyright laws regarding copyrighted materials by educational institutions and libraries. For instance, according to Lagola (2021), facts and public information, print maps, government documents, or pictures are exempt from copyright. The author further explained that images and text from NASA, the Smithsonian, and the National Archives are available to the public and do not require copyright permission for use. Notably, these copyright statute provisions are particularly important to K-2 educators. In addition, the U.S. Copyrights Office (n.d.-a) listed the following additional approvals for educators: • Teachers and students have certain rights to publicly display and perform copyrighted works in the classroom (Section 110 of U.S. Copyright Law). • Libraries and archives have special exemptions for the reproduction of copyrighted works in some circumstances (Section 108 of US Copyright Law). • The “fair use” allows limited copying of copyrighted works without the permission of the owner for certain purposes, including teaching and research (Section 107 of US Copyright Law). The fair use option is essential for educators, allowing reproduction and other uses of copyrighted materials without requiring permission from the copyright owner as long as such use meets certain conditions. In general, teachers can use copyrighted materials for educational purposes. Section 107 of the Copyright Act is useful as it provides the relevant framework concerning what may constitute fair use. Unlicensed use of copyrighted material to provide criticism, comments, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research may qualify as fair use (U.S. Copyright Office, n.d.-b). The Copyright Office also explained that multiple factors determine whether a person genuinely operates under fair use. The nature of the copyrighted work is among them. Other factors include the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material used and the potential harm to the copyrighted work’s market value. Given that fair use exceptions are broad and can be complicated to some, Technology & Learning (n.d.) published specific guidelines for teachers and K-12 educators to help them with copyright and fair use in the classroom, see Table 6.2 below.

96

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

Table 6.2  Copyright and fair use guidelines for teachers Medium Printed material (short)

Printed material (archives)

Illustrations and photographs

Specifics Poem less than 250 words; 250-word excerpt of poem greater than 250 words Articles, stories, or essays less than 2500 words Excerpt from a longer work (10 percent of work or 1000 words, whichever is less) One chart, picture, diagram, or cartoon per book or periodical issue Two pages (maximum) from an illustrated work less than 2500 words, e.g., a children’s book An entire work Portions of a work A work in which the existing format has become obsolete, e.g., a document stored on a Wang computer Photograph Illustration Collections of photographs Collections of illustrations

What you can do Teachers may make multiple copies for classroom use and incorporate them into multimedia for teaching classes. Students may incorporate text into multimedia projects.

The fine print Copies may be made only from legally acquired originals. Only one copy is allowed per student. Teachers may make copies in nine instances per class per term. Usage must be “at the instance and inspiration of a single teacher,” i.e., not a directive from the district. Don’t create anthologies. “Consumables,” such as workbooks, may not be copied.

A librarian may make up to three copies “solely for replacement of a copy that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen.”

Copies must contain copyright information. Archiving rights are designed to allow libraries to share one-of-a-kind and out-of-print books with other libraries.

Single works may be used in their entirety, but no more than five images by a single artist or photographer may be used. Not more than 15 images or 10 percent (whichever is less) may be used from a collection.

Although older illustrations may be in the public domain and don’t need permission to be used, sometimes they’re part of a copyright collection. Copyright ownership information is available at www.loc.gov or www.mpa.org.

(continued)

6.3  Legal Issues in Educational Technology

97

Table 6.2 (continued) Medium Video (for viewing)

Video (for integration into multimedia or video projects)

Music (for integration into multimedia or video projects)

Computer software

Specifics Videotapes (purchased) Videotapes (rented) DVDs Laserdiscs

What you can do Teachers may use these materials in the classroom. Copies may be made for archival purposes or to replace lost, damaged, or stolen documents.

The fine print The material must be legitimately acquired. The material must be used in a classroom or nonprofit environment “dedicated to face-to-face instruction.” Use should be instructional, not for entertainment or reward. Copying is OK if replacements are unavailable at a fair price or viable format. The material must be Students “may use Videotapes legitimately acquired: a legal portions of lawfully DVDs copy (not bootleg) or home acquired copyright Laserdiscs works in their academic recording. Multimedia multimedia,” defined as Copyright works included in encyclopedias multimedia projects must give QuickTime movies 10 percent or three proper attribution to the Video clips from the minutes (whichever is less) of “motion media.” copyright holder. Internet A maximum of 30 seconds per Up to 10 percent of a Records musical composition may be copyright musical Cassette tapes used. composition may be CDs Audio clips on the reproduced, performed, The multimedia program must and displayed as part of have an educational purpose. web a multimedia program produced by an educator or students. Only one machine at a time Library may lend Software may use the program. software to patrons. (purchased) The number of simultaneous Software (licensed) Software may be users must not exceed the installed on multiple number of licenses, and the machines and distributed to users via number of devices being used must never exceed the number a network. licensed. A network license Software may be may be required for multiple installed at home and users. school. Take aggressive action to Libraries may make copies for archival use monitor that copying is not taking place (unless for or replace lost, archival purposes). damaged, or stolen documents if the software is unavailable at a fair price or in a viable format. (continued)

98

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

Table 6.2 (continued) Medium Internet

Television

Specifics Internet connections World Wide Web

What you can do Images may be downloaded for student projects and teacher lessons. Sound files and video may be downloaded for use in multimedia projects (see portion restrictions above). Broadcasts or tapes Broadcast (e.g., made from broadcast ABC, NBC, CBS, may be used for UPN, PBS, and instruction. local stations) Cable channel Cable (e.g., CNN, programs may be used MTV, HBO) Videotapes made of with permission. Many programs may be broadcast and cable TV programs retained by teachers for years—see cable in the classroom (www. ciconline.org) for details.

The fine print Resources from the web may not be reposted onto the internet without permission. However, links to legitimate resources can be posted. Any resources you download must have been legitimately acquired by the Website Schools are allowed to retain broadcast tapes for a minimum of 10 school days. (enlightened rights holders, such as PBS’s ReadingRainbow, allow for much more.) Cable programs are technically not covered by the same guidelines as broadcast television.

Reproduced by permission of the publisher, Technology & Learning (n.d.)

As the above table indicates, fair use guidelines give enough flexibility to teachers and allow them to enrich their instructional practices with appropriately-chosen copyrighted items without having to ask permission of the owner. However, as Starr (2015) argued, “many educators interpret fair use as the freedom to use copyrighted materials as long as their use is restricted to instructional purposes.” However, the author cautioned educators to be careful because there is a fine line between copyright and fair use, further noting that “fair use doctrine is not a license to steal.” Reminding us of how nuanced copyright and fair use are, Lagola (2021) offered multiple recommendations for educators. First, the author recommended limiting exposure using password-protected platforms like Google Classroom or other learning management systems when sharing class materials with students. In this way, sharing will be limited to registered students only. In addition, Lagola suggested technology-related solutions, such as using the Creative Commons search tools and installing browser extensions to look for free images. Furthermore, the author’s recommendations included utilizing special projects like Project Gutenberg (gutenberg.org), where thousands of free e-books are available, using materials from Wikipedia, and accessing government sites for readily available materials. Finally, when in doubt, she recommended reaching out to publishing companies and asking permission to make copies of the materials needed for classroom use. In addition to the recommendation discussed above, Hyde (2018) suggested developing “educator-defined best practices” regarding fair use in education. The author argued that building a consensus in the education community would be

6.3  Legal Issues in Educational Technology

99

possible as user rights become more complex in contemporary culture. Finally, the call for action among educators to become familiar with the Open Educational Resources (OER) and Creative Commons (CC) licensing environment to “explore, create, and collaborate” with colleagues around the world presented as crucial steps to address the copyright and fair use in the educational setting (oercommons. org, n.d.).

6.3.3 Safety and Privacy In addition to the plagiarism, copyright, and fair use issues discussed above, safety and privacy are other legal matters that require the attention of K-12 educators. In this context, multiple U.S. federal laws provide direction and guidance for students, schools, and parents, including but not limited to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA), and Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). FERPA, signed into law in 1974, protects the privacy of education records (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). Schools receiving funds under the relevant program must comply with FERPA regulations. Parents also have rights under FERPA. Students assume these rights when they reach the age of 18 or attend post-­ secondary education, called “eligible students.” U.S.  Department of Education (2018) explained that FERPA gives parents or eligible students the right to see student education records collected by the school. Schools are not allowed to disclose any information from students’ educational records without permission from parents or eligible students. However, some exceptions allow schools to disclose academic records without consent, such as students’ relocation to a new school, needed by the school accreditation agencies, and in cases of health and safety emergencies. In addition, schools are allowed to share “directory” information without consent, like students’ names, addresses, telephone numbers, their date and place of birth, and school-related data such as any honors or rewards they may have received and their attendance records. Regardless, parents and eligible students can request a waiver disclosing their directory information. Schools significantly progressed actions to parents and eligible students about their rights under FERPA. Schools can use appropriate mediums for this delivery, such as letters, student handbooks, or newspaper articles. In 1998, the U.S. Congress enacted another law giving parents the ability to control what information websites can collect from their children –The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) (Federal Trade Commission, n.d.). COPPA placed parental control over what information commercial website operators or online services can collect from young children under 13. Under the COPPA rule, the digital service providers must post a clear message about their online privacy policy and declare what type of personal information is collected online from users who are under 13 years of age. In addition, they have to allow parents to consent to

100

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

the operator’s collection and internal use of children’s information and disclose that information to third parties or not. The COPPA Rule became effective on April 21, 2000. Two years later, a survey conducted by the Federal Trade Commission showed that significant progress was made by websites collecting personal information from children under 13 regarding said children’s safety and privacy online (Federal Trade Commission, 2002). However, the survey also found out that while most sites provided some critical privacy protections for children’s personal information, they did not comply with all the requirements. The original COPPA rule was amended on January 17, 2013, and enacted on July 1, 2013. It gave parents additional authority over the online collection of their children’s personal data, keeping pace with changing technologies such as mobile technologies and social media sites (Federal Trade Commission, 2013). In addition, the modified version broadened what was defined as a child’s personal information, including ‘persistent identifiers’ like cookies that track online activity, geolocation information, and audiovisual material like photos and audio recordings, and videos. Two years after the original COPPA law, the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was enacted by Congress in 2000 (Federal Communications Commission FCC, 2019). CIPA’s primary concern is minors’ access to obscene or harmful content on the Internet. Under the CIPA regulations, schools and libraries receive discounts from the federal government for Internet services through the E-rate program. In return, they certify that they have an Internet safety policy with protection measures. For example, protection measures include blocking or filtering obscene images, child pornography, or other harmful materials to minors. Moreover, schools and libraries subject to CIPA must warrant that their Internet safety protocols include monitoring the online activities of minors. Finally, they are required to offer educational programs for children about appropriate online behavior, including netiquette, unauthorized access, and cyberbullying awareness, which are discussed further in the following section. In addition to federal laws, national alliances and individual U.S. states have also taken on initiatives to protect children’s safety and privacy. For instance, the National Cybersecurity Alliance (NCA), a non-profit organization, envisions a more secure and interconnected world by building strong public and private partnerships to encourage a culture of cybersecurity (NCA, n.d.). This way aims to develop and implement educational activities and awareness efforts to help the general public safeguard their sensitive information and safely use online services. Similarly, National Cybersecurity Awareness Month is celebrated every October in the U.S. to increase the nation’s resilience against cyber threats (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, 2021). In addition, the U.S. Department of Education provides ongoing training modules, videos, and webinars about protecting student privacy for varying audiences such as parents, students, and K-12 educators (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). At a state level, the Michigan Department of Attorney General, for instance, has featured the following statewide programs to protect children: OK2SAY—Michigan’s student safety program and the Michigan Cyber Safety Initiative (Michigan Department of Attorney General, n.d.). As a

6.3  Legal Issues in Educational Technology

101

result, according to the Michigan Department of Attorney General, nearly 2 million students have attended a student safety presentation. Since the passage of federal laws and regulations and national and state-wide initiatives, the U.S. has made significant progress in protecting K-12 students’ safety and privacy on the Internet. However, Matecki (2010) argued, “as the Internet by its nature is a fluid, dynamic, and ever-changing medium,” flexible and comprehensive regulations should be an ongoing process to guarantee the safety and privacy of students. Similarly, Kerry (2018) argued that data collection in the U.S. has become faster through various digital devices. The author further argued that “as the data universe keeps expanding, more and more of it falls outside the various specific laws on the books.” More specific to K-12 education, Neelakantan (2019) highlighted that a new generation of students use multiple digital devices, but they have yet to learn how to protect private and sensitive information online. Citing a recent McAfee survey of 1000 university students and current graduates of 18 to 25 ages, Neelakantan reported that students arrive at college with limited internet safety and security information. McAfee’s survey found that only a little over one-third of participating students learned about personal data safety through school resources. Therefore, Neelakantan concluded that given the increased use of digital devices in K–12 schools, good “data hygiene” must be taught to students far before reaching post-­ secondary education. Many teachers in the U.S. would agree with Neelakantan (2019) that cyber safety must be enforced at school. Robinson et al. (2010) reported that the installation of filtering software for inappropriate materials is the practice of many schools, adding that these measures are best paired with an acceptable use policy (AUP) (see Sect. 6.4.2 more about AUP). The author concluded that having proper software, a well-­ written acceptable use policy, and consistent teacher monitoring can protect students from objectionable material and inappropriate interactions with other students while at school. Still, others are also quick to highlight that safety and privacy measures “start at home,” as one of the graduate students in the Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology course expressed during an online discussion in fall 2018. Like their classmate, many other practitioners also voiced that teachers alone cannot bear the burden of setting standards and enforcing safety and privacy futures for students; “the first line of defense is parents.” Agreeing with the notion, Ben-Joseph (2018) provided information and tips to parents and guardians to keep their children safe; being vigilant and talking to kids about online safety are among them. Ben-­ Joseph also explained that parents and guardians should utilize online protection tools like parent-control captions that many internet service providers offer. In conclusion, three significant constituents may positively affect children’s Internet interactions, and they must work together. First, part of the solution toward keeping students safe on the Internet will involve legislation at the various levels of government, creating specific guidelines for Internet use. The second step will include empowering schools and teachers to educate children on how to handle the Internet appropriately. Finally, considering parents and guardians as critical partners

102

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

in this struggle will add to the effort to make students’ engagement with the internet safer. In sum, the safety and privacy of students is a collective responsibility.

6.4 Ethical Issues in Educational Technology Similar to the legal issues discussed above, ethical issues in educational technology have long been considered an important topic since the early stages of technology integration in education. Ethics generally consist of moral principles that inform personal behavior in an activity. For example, in the fall term of 2021, a graduate student in the Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology course shared the following analogy to express her understanding of ethics, concluding with a comment about how and where we comprehend ethical behaviors about learning technologies: Ethics is probably the most important aspect of a person’s life. Your ethics is basically your personal programming. A person is like a personal computer. The hardware is the thing that comes with the computer that cannot be changed. This is similar to your personality and the traits that were passed down from your parents. Next is the programmer(s), the outside influence that determines what software and programs are installed. The programmers in your life are many; friends, family, teachers, and many other people. It is from these people that you learn how to deal with life. Finally, is your software, which determines how you process this information given to you. Software is the equivalent of your ethics. Ethics are learned, therefore it is imperative that you properly early on. While traditional ethics is learned in the home from parents and relatives, rarely are ethics with technology.

The reflections above highlight multiple discussion points. First, it presents that ethics is an integral part of life. Then, it argues that ethics are learned behavior, possibly from significant others in our lives. Finally, it points out a particular challenge related to teaching ethics in digital conduct. Potential ethical issues faced by the education community in the U.S. include but are not limited to netiquette, cyberbullying, and objectionable materials and educational control. The following section further examines these topics mimicking the discussion points presented in the above sample passage.

6.4.1 Netiquette The term netiquette is a combination of “net” (from the Internet) and “etiquette” (from conventions and norms observed by a society). In other words, as Shea (2011) described, netiquette is the etiquette of the Internet, which suggests a set of rules for proper online behaviors. The author further explained that netiquette has ten “core rules”: 1. Remember the human 2. Adhere to the same standards of behavior online that you follow in real life

6.4  Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

103

3. Know where you are in cyberspace 4. Respect other people’s time and bandwidth 5. Make yourself look good online 6. Share expert knowledge 7. Help keep flame wars under control 8. Respect other people’s privacy 9. Don’t abuse your power 10. Be forgiving of other people’s mistakes The first core rule of Netiquette is no different than what your parents or kindergarten teacher teaches you, says Shea (2011): “Do unto others as you’d have others do unto you.” Shea pointed out that it applies the same in the virtual world as we say it in a basic manner: Remember the human. Shea argued that in most cases, when we communicate electronically, we have limited opportunities for facial expressions, gestures, and tone of voice, particulate through the electronic, written communication we regularly conduct through the Internet. Therefore, she highlighted that those you communicate with are real people and ensure you do not write anything you say to the person face-to-face. According to Shea (2011), rule number two of Netiquette mainly highlights that lower ethics or personal behavior standards are not acceptable in cyberspace; therefore, adhere to the same standards of behavior online that you follow in real life. She further argued that if faced with an ethical dilemma online, it is recommended that you confer the code you pursue in real life. Finally, she underlined that netiquette rules are about manners, not legal mandates, so try your best to follow the laws of society and cyberspace. Knowing where you are in cyberspace is the third rule of Netiquette, Shea (2011) wrote. She asserted that netiquette varies from domain to domain; therefore, it is essential to know where you are. Currently, there are multiple domain name types: “com” for commercial business; “org” for organizations; “gov” for government agencies; “edu” for educational institutions; “net” for network organizations; and “mil” military. Given that social culture may vary in different institutions, organizations, and places, Shea argued that Netiquette is different in varying locations. Therefore, knowing which domain you are in and whom you communicate with is critical. For instance, casual chats might be quite acceptable in your social network but may not be suitable in a professional setting. Shea (2011) argued that even though people sleep less and use more labor-saving tools than their grandparents, they seem to have less time than before. Therefore, she placed rule number 4 for Netiquette: Respect other people’s time and bandwidth. The author described that “bandwidth” carries multiple definitions like wires’ capacity to bear information in cyberspace or the storage capacity of a host system. Either way, Shea said, for example, when you post the exact text to the same group of people several times, you waste their time and bandwidth–sending redundant information over the wires that need to be stored somewhere. Shea (2011) argued that making yourself look good online is another rule for Netiquette. She highlighted that this should start with the quality of your writing,

104

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

where you pay attention to the content of your message and check your facts, grammar, and spelling. In addition, the author added, you should not give the impression that you are cold and cruel. In general, Shea argued, most people active online enjoy being liked. Finally, she said, be friendly and courteous, do not use improper language, and do not be hostile. Shea (2011) agreed with the notion that sharing knowledge is enjoyable, a long-­ time internet practice, and that it serves to make the world better. Therefore, she added Netiquette rule number 6: Share expert knowledge. She explained that the power of cyberspace is in its numbers. Asking questions online is effective because many informed people read the questions. Even though a few of them may offer thoughtful answers, our knowledge about the matter increases. The Internet was founded and extended because people wanted to share information. Then, eventually, the rest of us started using it. So, she says, do your part and share what you know. Another rule of netiquette is related to keeping flame wars under control. Shea (2011) pointed out that “flaming” is what most people do when they voice a firmly held view without holding back any feeling. The author highlighted that Netiquette allows flaming, a long-standing network tradition. However, Shea continued, Netiquette has limited tolerance for the perpetuation of flame wars that can decrease online knowledge sharing. Shea (2011) stated that respecting other people’s privacy is a core Netiquette rule. For example, she said, “you would never dream of going through your colleagues’ desk drawers.” So similarly, you would not go through their emails or text messages. However, Shea added that violating other people’s privacy is not just unacceptable Netiquette; it could also be illegal in some cases. Rule 9: Don’t abuse your power. Shea (2011) argued that some people have more power than others in cyberspace, such as IT experts or individuals with administrative access. However, this does not give them the right to misuse their power. For example, she said, system administrators should never read private emails or access confidential documents. Finally, Shea (2011) stated forgiving other people’s mistakes is good Netiquette. According to the author, Everyone was a novice network user once. We all can make mistakes like spelling errors, annoying messages, or unnecessary questions. Be nice to them and do not react quickly. If you do decide to inform someone of their mistake, do so politely and through a direct or private message. Give people the benefit of the doubt, and assume they do not know any better. As Shea nicely said, “netiquette violations are often examples of poor netiquette.” Fast forward to recent times, Hartney (2010) published an updated version of the ten basic rules of Netiquette: 1. Make real people a priority 2. Use respectful language 3. Share with discretion 4. Don’t exclude others 5. Choose friends wisely 6. Respect people’s privacy

6.4  Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

105

7. Fact check before reposting 8. Don’t spam 9. Respond to emails and texts promptly 10. Update online information Even though some of the Netiquette rules both Shea (2011) and Hartney (2010) listed present similar notions, it appears that as technology evolved over the years, the rules for Netiquette have also changed. For example, explaining the first rule, Make real people a priority; Hartney expressed that if you are having a conversation with someone, make sure that the person is your priority, not your phone or computer. In addition, the author suggested that you should inform the person you are with in advance if you anticipate a call, text, or email. Hartney continued to explain that continuously checking your email, social media apps, or voice and text messages while with someone might give them the expression that you do care less about them. Finally, Hartney added that we should avoid taking phone calls and having continued conversations in shared public places, such as restaurants, public transit, and libraries. According to Hartney (2010), using respectful language is another Netiquette rule. The author argued that name-calling, cursing, and expressing deliberately offensive opinions are not good netiquette practices applicable to email communication and go for any social media site, forum, chat room, or text message. Hartney continued to elaborate that this is not only a matter of what is said but also how something is said. For instance, being aware of how using caps lock in a written message often indicates or is read as yelling. Instead, using phrases like “please,” “thank you,” and “with all due respect” as appropriate standards of respectful language. Another rule of Netiquette, Hartney (2010) pointed out, relates to sharing with discretion. For example, Hartney suggested avoiding sending pictures showing nudity, drinking alcohol, or even unedited home videos. In other words, do not share it online if you do not like your manager, coworkers, or parents and kids seeing it now or at any point in the future. Because once they are on the Internet, it is almost impossible to remove them. Likewise, show the same caution during phone conversations in public places. While you may not be able to see the person you are talking to, the people around you can see and hear you. Rule number 4: Don’t exclude others. Hartney (2010) suggested that in cases where you might have an inside joke with another person or a select group of people, it is best to send them the joke over a private message rather than in a more extensive or public online group. By making a comment on a Facebook status or other publicly viewed forum that is only legible to a select few people, you risk making other viewers of the content feel left out. The same goes, Hartney wrote, for publicly reacting to messages while in the presence of others, such as laughing at a joke that was sent just to you. If you do not want to share the message with the people you are with, it is best to save the reading and react to it for later. Hartney (2010) recommended choosing friends wisely on social media sites. She said it would not be perceived well to drop, unfollow, or block someone from your

106

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

friend list on social media. Hartney consequently recommends carefully considering who you add to your friend list before doing so. If you don’t want to be connected long-term, perhaps you should not add them to your friend list. If you would like to stay in professional contact with a colleague, it would be best to connect with them through LinkedIn or similar professional networking sites. Like Shea (2011) and Hartney (2010) also added respecting people’s privacy in the Netiquette rules. She listed a couple of action points: Do not share any message shared with you before obtaining permission from the original sender. Show the same respect when uploading photos or videos in public spaces that include other individuals; seek consent first. In addition, to protect the privacy of others, try using BBC (blind carbon copy) feature rather than CC (carbon copy) option when you share something with more than one person. In this way, the recipients’ names and email addresses will not be publicized to others. Fact-checking before responding is another Netiquette rule, according to Hartney (2010). She suggested being careful about the hoax, fake news, and urban myths adding to the Internet’s noise and wasting people’s time. Citing research from Stanford University, Hartney pointed out that the diffusion of misinformation among Facebook users alone reaches 70 million times each month (Allcott et al., 2018). Hartney also recommended fact-checking with knowledgeable people before sharing critical information. Or, the author advised, do a simple Google search or use snopes.com before forwarding any message that sounds suspicious. As she highlighted another Netiquette rule, Hartney (2010) said, do not spam. Any unwanted email, text message, or social media post in cyberspace is considered spamming. In addition, the author argued that sending or forwarding a message to all of your contacts at once can also be regarded in this way. So, be discreet about that. Moreover, she pointed out that many harmful computer viruses have been circulated via email messages. Therefore, if you do not know the sender, try not to open an email or social media message. Hartney (2010) pointed out that promptly responding to emails and texts is part of Netiquette. She said that it is fine to ignore or delete messages like spam, but if you have provided someone with your email address, if your email address is public, or if you are otherwise in a position where people have reason to believe they can contact you by email, it is courteous to reply to their messages within a few days. If it will take longer to respond, email them and tell them that. If you receive a question you may not want to answer, do not simply ignore it. Instead, it is proper Netiquette to message back and write that the question is a difficult one and that they should look to other sources for information. Hartney (2010) argued the tenth rule of Netiquette; updating online information. She recommended not leaving inaccurate information on your profiles. Do not leave your hours of operation online if you are unavailable. If you cannot keep your website up to date, consider taking it down. Discussing the Netiquette issue in the Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology course during the fall of 2021 semester, most of the students who were practicing teachers were quick to note that “lack of Netiquette is present in most

6.4  Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

107

school districts [in the U.S.] to the level that some cases resulted in suspending students.” These practitioners also admitted that they need to do more to teach students about Netiquette. They also shared their frustration, indicating that because Netiquette, in most cases, applies the same standards of behavior online that a person follows in real life, they were observing such a decline in face-to-face behavior as well as making them “quite overwhelming at times, when one tries to fight against and overarching negative culture” both in-person and online. They were aware that “it is a fight [they] must fight though.” And finally, the practitioners in the class expressed that they should not be left alone in this fight to address the need for parental involvement. They voiced that educating students about netiquette should not stop at school but involve ethical technology use at home. Finally, they recommended that parents be aware of what their children are doing at home concerning their website use, social media posts, sharing sensitive information, etc. It appears that both K-12 educators and parents will continue the battle of educating a new generation of students about netiquette as technology is expected to continue evolving in the coming years and beyond. The need for an ongoing teaching process about Netiquette was prominent when drafting this section of the present book in the early fall of 2020. Due to Covid-19 pandemic-related restrictions and a good number of K-12 students choosing the option of continuing their education remotely, a need for addressing Netiquette rules for remote learning was just emerging. For example, Harris (2020) reported that several school teachers in Palm Beach County, Florida asked parents and guardians to conduct themselves appropriately while their children attended school remotely and were filmed and recorded. Teachers said they had witnessed parents’ not wearing proper clothing (partial nudity), consuming alcohol, or using drugs during students’ remote class sessions. Teachers also reported that in cases where students were on a video call and were unmuted, they could hear the parents’ conversations in the background of lessons; several teachers were exposed to “cursing” and inappropriate language. Given that remote learning will continue for the conceivable feature in K-12 education, there seems to be an immediate need to develop some Netiquette rules for remote learning.

6.4.2 Cyberbullying Another pressing ethical issue in the field of educational technology is cyberbullying. Although the issue of bullying predates digital technologies as part of everyday life, twenty-first-century educators are confronted with a new form of bullying – cyberbullying – a form of bullying that takes place in “cyberspace” or through digital devices. Bullying in its traditional form is “unwanted, aggressive behavior among school-­ aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance” (stopbullying.gov, 2020). To be considered bullying, stopbullying.gov further argued that such behavior must show an “imbalance of power” and is repeated or potential to be repeated.

108

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

Bullying may cause serious, lasting problems for bullied students and others (stopbullying.gov, 2020), leading to anxiety, depression, and even suicide (bullyingstatistics.org, n.d.). The nationwide data on youth bullying in the U.S. indicated that even though there was a decreasing trend of students being bullied at school, around 20% of students ages 12–18 experienced bullying in 2017 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2019) reported similar findings from the high school population, with 19% reporting being bullied on school property in the year preceding the study. Earlier literature referred to cyberbullying as “bullying via electronic communication tools” and labeled it as the “new bottle but old wine” (Li, 2005, p.1). With new digital technologies emerging over the years, the definition has expanded to include apps, online social media sites, and gaming where users view, participate in, or share content (stopbullying.gov, 2020). Citing Hinduja and Patchin (2015), Cyberbullying Research Center (2015) defined it as “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices.” In other words, as stopbullying.gov (2020) articulated, cyberbullying has many different appearances, including spreading rumors online, sending hateful messages, and circulating a hurtful image or video of someone without their permission. It also includes sharing confidential information about someone else that results in embarrassment or humiliation. Furthermore, there are forms of cyberbullying that cross into illegal behavior. Across the U.S., whether young or old, it would be difficult to find someone who, at one point in their lives, has not had some experience with bullying. It may be as the bully, the recipient, or simply as a bystander, but an experience nonetheless (Notar et al., 2013). Just as the more traditional form of bullying, cyberbullying can be detrimental to its victims, but its destructive nature can reach much further. Because cyberbullying can occur using any computer, tablet, or mobile device at any time, it increases opportunities for bullies to prey on their victims. In addition, it becomes harder for victims to escape these attacks. Other additional downfalls include that digital technologies allow bullies to continue the harassment any day and at any time, potentially having unwanted pictures or videos go viral. Therefore, it can be harder to tell if a child is being bullied online unless they come out and share. The following facts about cyberbullying present the recent cyberbullying statistics in the U.S.: • About 4 out of 10 young people between the ages of 12 and 17 have experienced cyberbullying. Furthermore, about 1 in 3 experienced it more than once (Hinduja & Patchin, 2019). • Cyberbullying often occurs jointly with off-line bullying (mixed-harassment), which is considered “the most traumatic for victims” (Mitchell et al., 2016, p. 10). • The most commonly used medium for cyberbullying is mobile devices, which are being used by the vast majority of teens in the U.S. who have online access (95%) (Hinduja & Patchin, 2018). • Overall, teen boys, and girls are equally likely to experience cyberbullying (Anderson, 2018). LGBTQ+ students experience a higher rate of online

6.4  Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

109

h­ arassment than the average rate; about half of LGBTQ+ students between the ages of 13 and 21 reported experiencing cyberbullying (Kosciw et al., 2016). • Only 1 in 10 middle and high school students, ages 13 to 17, will inform their parents about being cyberbullied (National Crime Prevention Council, n.d.) • A greater risk of self-harm and suicidal behaviors exist among young people who experience cyberbullying (John et al., 2018). With cyberbullying on the rise, can we reduce or eliminate it? In the U.S., there have been varying responses. Even though no law exists at the federal level, more than half the states have included cyberbullying in their statutes (A Platform for Good, n.d.). The essential components of these laws highlight that individuals who show acts of cyberbullying will be held accountable. Another important consideration of the legislation, in general, is keeping teachers and schools responsible for reporting and acting in case of cyberbullying. In addition to the laws, raising awareness and creating a positive culture among students is another considerable help to the cause. Riggs (2013) argued that “criminalizing” cyberbullying would have extensive implications for children and families. Riggs made this argument at the time that a 12-year-old girl committed suicide due to her alleged bullies, ages 12 and 14, who were charged with felony aggravated stalking when one of the girls posted on Facebook that she had bullied the child who died. The national debate started shortly after questioning if a 14-year-old and 12-year-old could be criminally penalized for unacceptable but not necessarily criminal behavior. Riggs reported that the Sheriff who ordered the arrests said that police should not be involved in most cyberbullying cases soon. The Sheriff added, “we should be the last ones called. I can tell you this: the first line of defense is parents. Parents need to pay attention. They need to quit being their child’s best friend and be their child’s best parent. That’s what they need to do. So it starts at home.” Connell (2013) presented a similar argument stating “criminal charges don’t deter bullies.” She argued that “if history is any indication, the use of the criminal justice system as a punishment for bullying might not be beneficial to either victim or aggressor, especially because the youngest offenders fare poorly in our overburdened system.” Connell referred to studies summarized from the National Research Council and pointed out that “adolescents lack the capacity for self-regulation in emotional situations, and young offenders cannot gauge future consequences in the same way adults can. Bullying behavior falls into this category, as students often react out of emotional frustration and a need to feel in control. The threat of punishment is often discounted due to the heightened emotion of the moment and sensitivity to more immediate interests, such as peer pressure.” Connell concluded that preventing cyberbullying is essential, but just as critical is finding ways to mitigate and intervene in conflicts between youths without involving the criminal justice system. However, for Connel, this does not mean that we are out of options. Alternative methods considering how students learn and model behavior would be a better option to end bullying, Connel argued. Furthermore, she expressed that parents and schools have a more significant impact on students’ behavior than we usually realize. Therefore, she recommended that

110

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

adults show a quick response to bullying, confirming that such behavior will not be tolerated. This way, Connel concluded, we will help form the needed transformation. Opposing views also exist to criminalize cyberbullying, highlighting that prevention is essential but not the complete answer. For instance, in this direction, a senate bill was introduced in Texas with “David’s Law” to criminalize cyberbullying when it leads to a minor’s severe injury or suicide. The bill was named after a 16-year-old boy who died by suicide after months of harassment online by his classmates due to his appearance and receiving threats of physical violence (Wang, 2017). Wang reported that the bill categorized cyberbullying as a misdemeanor, authorizing courts to issue warrants to identify individuals who anonymously harass children online, and required public schools to notify and interfere in any presumed cyberbullying issues. It also permitted targets to sue parents of cyberbullies if they could have intervened but did not act. In addition, Wang reported that Texas lawmakers added “cyberbullying” to the Texas Education Code in 2011, including it under the “bullying” section. Still, Wang further noted that they did not form any legal penalty for cyberbullying but required school districts to create policies to stop and deter bullying and cyberbullying. Some of the Bill’s critics argued that prevention is a more effective deterrent than punishment and that criminalizing cyberbullying would be ineffective for children who are not fully developed yet, Wang stated. Many educational programs address cyberbullying to some extent. For example, most programs include the following critical messages and skills: Defining and clarifying what is mean or hurtful, fostering empathy or assuming the viewpoint of another person, de-escalation strategies, disengagement techniques, eyewitness support and mobilization, reporting, and seeking help (Finkelhor et  al., 2020). Citing varying studies, the authors reported that educational programs help reduce cyberbullying perpetration by 10–15% and victimization by 15% (see Gaffney et  al., 2018; Frey et  al., 2000; Karna et  al., 2013). In addition, Finkelhor et  al. pointed out that most of the cyberbullying interventions reviewed in these studies were associated with off-line bullying prevention programs, thus presenting a solid case for tackling cyberbullying in conjunction with off-line bullying (Finkelhor et al., 2020). Wolpert-Gawron (2012) highlighted the “door to door” rule that reminds schools to keep students safe until they return home. She asserted that this law now includes cyber safety and netiquette, making educators’ obligation in their widened world. Therefore, the author articulated that schools should consider the community as a partner, and parents must be part of this learning environment. In return, she stated, parents must collaborate with schools to help students function appropriately in the digital world. Similarly, Reiney (n.d.) argued that “bullying is a public health issue.” The author argued that laws themselves are not enough to adequately deter criminal acts, including cyberbullying. She asserted that preventing cyberbullying ultimately requires involvement from schools, students, and parents.

6.4  Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

111

6.4.3 Objectionable Materials and Educational Control Earlier in the information era, limited web, and Internet access were challenging. Shortly after, a shift happened from lack of access to easy access, including minors’ exposure to “objectionable materials.” The definition of objectionable materials is not rigidly defined. Examples of such materials include but are not limited to alcohol, tobacco, online gambling and pornography ads, explicit videos and images, discrimination sites, and live streaming crimes like murder and rapes. School administrators responded to the issue by tightly controlling access to the Internet. The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), discussed earlier, specifically directs schools and libraries to measures to protect students from inappropriate content and activities, such as blocking or filtering obscene images, child pornography, or other harmful materials. Cases that emerged from the security measures indicated that it was working well for some schools and teachers. For some others, however, these protection measures made available computer technologies and the Internet impossible for teachers and students to use (Robinson et al., 2010). In addition, and perhaps more importantly, Robinson et al. reported that, over time, teachers who had been challenged and frustrated with the restriction measures seemed less willing to use technology in their classrooms. This issue of “security vs. access” still exists today, along with the question of what teachers, parents, and administrators should do to address the case on hand. Stratford (1995) questioned the same security vs. access notion 25 years ago by titling his commentary for the CMC Magazine–What’s a (Teacher, Parent, Administrator) to Do? He wrote in his opinion piece: “As Internet access enters the consciousness of K-12 education, there’s a nagging thought in our minds: what are we going to do about kids running into objectionable stuff?” In his arguments, Stratford pointed out some “technological approaches” to the question, such as blocking URLs, restricting domain names, and filtering specific words. The author also suggested some “human approaches” like compiling acceptable URL lists displaying symbols of “approval.” However, he argued that these measures alone were not enough to resolve the issue because some of the suggestions were not technically possible or practical or raised censorship issues. Stratford admitted that the solution is not easy but recommended the following starting points: teachers should educate themselves about the known location of objectionable materials; educators should be honest with parents about what kinds of offensive materials their children might quickly encounter on the Internet, and schools must obtaining signed consent forms of both parents and students. The author also recommended that teachers and parents be consistent with the message concerning objectionable materials and inform the students about the possible risk. Stratford concluded that there seems to be no best solution to “protect” students because the Internet is not entirely controllable. Therefore, the author strongly recommended that perhaps the best answer is to “prepare” students and inform their actions with personal values. This way, Stratford said, we can accomplish something fundamental in their education by entrusting them to make informed, responsible decisions.

112

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

Addressing the same security vs. access issue 15  years later, Robinson et  al. (2010) summarized the arguments provided by Stratford (1995) in three common responses: (a) filtering and blocking software, (b) acceptable use policies and contracts, and (c) direct supervision. Exploring the digital learning environment changes over the five years since their co-writing with Robinson et al. (2010) and Brown and Green (2015) offered a phased strategy for developing a district-wide plan for students’ safety and maintaining a proper level of security. Their writing included discussions about blocks, filters, and other security measures but also acknowledged that students were smart enough to find ways around firewalls. Therefore, Brown and Green recommended that schools promote a community of digital citizens, including students, parents, teachers, administrators, and staff. They concluded that schools would establish a secure environment for teaching and learning with technology by extending the responsibility to all stakeholders. This view still prevails among most K-12 educators in the U.S.. As one of the graduate students in the Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology course in the fall semester of 2021 said it best; “it takes a village to raise a child, and that still rings true today.” As the above discussions highlighted, the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for Internet access is standard in U.S. K-12 schools to address the ethical use of learning technologies. Typically, school districts create an AUP for the entire school community and distribute it to the schools. However, if the district-wide AUP is not in place, individual schools consider developing collaboration with students, teachers, parents, and administrators. In general, an AUP makes the school community aware of the rights, responsibilities, privileges, and sanctions related to using computers and the Internet from school equipment and the school network (DigitalBridgeK-12, n.d.). Cited in the Education World (n.d.), the National Education Association (NEA) suggests that an effective AUP should include the following six elements: preamble, definitions, policy statement, acceptable uses, unacceptable uses, and violations and sanctions. The preamble explains the need for the policy and describes the process involved in determining the AUP’s goals. Typically, this initial section also refers to the school’s overall code of conduct, applying to student online activities. The definition section describes the keywords used in the AUP. In this section, words and terms such as the Internet, computer network, and instructional use find their definitions. It is also helpful to define some ambiguous terms. This way, writing tries to ensure student and parent understanding of the terms in the policy. The policy statement conveys what type of digital services the AUP covers and the circumstances under which students can use these services. For instance, most schools require students to complete responsible use training that enhances students’ understanding of the AUP policies and procedures. The acceptable uses section explains how students should use the available technology. Generally, this section defines and exemplifies the educational use of digital technologies in school. Similar to the acceptable use, the unacceptable uses section provides clear and specific examples of what constitutes intolerable student use. Typically, this section sets the rules for off-limit sites for students and restricts student behaviors that

6.5 Conclusion

113

might be destructive to the computer network services. Moreover, the section prohibits students from sending, forwarding, or engaging in inappropriate communication, such as profanity, harassment, and violent and sexually explicit messages. The violations and sanctions section specifies policies and procedures for reporting and addressing policy violations. This way, students understand how to report policy violations and whom to contact in such cases. Usually, this section refers to the school’s general student code of conduct for handling violations. As the NEA (2019) suggested, a typical AUP shall require the signatures of students and parents or guardians before allowing students access to technology equipment and the school network. This way, users become aware of acceptable use policies and release the school’s responsibility for unacceptable use. Appendix A presents an example AUP from Dearborn Public Schools located in Southeastern Michigan (dearbornschools.org, n.d.).

6.5 Conclusion Ethical and legal issues have become a topic of concern as educational technology has increasingly been used in K-12 schools. Educators’ common legal issues include plagiarism, copyright and fair use, and safety and privacy. In addition, netiquette, cyberbullying, and objectionable materials and educational control are the ethical issues currently present in schools. Plagiarism manifests itself from the lack of knowledge and skills about writing with integrity and still presents a challenging situation for educators. Though U.S. schools have rigorous policies against plagiarism, students increasingly use technology to participate in plagiarism, contrary to educational goals. Therefore, besides offering ongoing education and resources for plagiarism prevention, practitioners recommend focusing on the issue’s root causes, such as lack of confidence, time management skills, and student interest in the assigned work. Digital technologies have made it easier for educators to access and share materials with students. Fair use guidelines are flexible enough to allow teachers to enrich their classroom instruction with copyrighted materials. However, they should be careful about potential violations and penalties if they fail to comply. Still, “educator-­ defined best practices” regarding fair use seem necessary next step as the digital culture becomes more complex. Protecting K-12 students’ safety and privacy in cyberspace is a priority for the education community. The U.S. has made significant progress in this direction through federal laws such as FERPA. In addition, state-wide initiatives and efforts from non-profit organizations provide ongoing educational activities to protect children’s security and privacy on the Internet. The consensus among educators and researchers highlights three different but interrelated strategies to ensure student safety and privacy: proper protection software, well-written acceptable use policies, and consistent teacher monitoring. Moreover, practitioners voice that parents are

114

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

“the first line of defense” and should partner with teachers to set standards and enforce safety and privacy for students. Ethics serve as one’s moral compass. The education community seems to agree on rules for proper online behaviors–Netiquette–Internet etiquette. Even though technology evolves, many people accept one common practice: “Do unto others as you’d have others do unto you.” Yet, practicing teachers report limited netiquette in most schools in the U.S. and highlight the need for further work. With the recent remote learning surge due to the COVID-19 pandemic, educators are overwhelmed as they try to address negative digital culture both in-person and online. And again, teachers point out the need for parental involvement, expressing that “they should not be left alone in this fight.” Contemporary education face cyberbullying through digital devices. Spreading rumors online, sending hateful messages, and circulating a hurtful image or video are among the different appearances of cyberbullying, which cause severe known impacts on students leading to anxiety, depression, and even suicide. Schools address cyberbullying through educational programs, highlighting critical messages and skills such as fostering empathy, de-escalation strategies, eyewitness support and mobilization, and reporting and seeking help. Current studies point out that addressing cyberbullying in conjunction with offline bullying seems effective (Finkelhor et al., 2020). Educators and researchers also agree that cyberbullying is a “public health issue” and establishing partnerships among students, teachers, parents, and other community members is vital to preventing cyberbullying (Wolpert-­ Gawron, 2012. Relatively easy access to the Internet brought another issue to the attention of educators–minors accessing objectionable materials. Even though it is not rigidly defined, some examples include tobacco and alcohol ads, exposure to online gambling, pornography, explicit videos and images, vulnerability to discrimination sites, and live streaming crimes like murder and rape. The first response of many schools has been installing blocking or filtering software on school computers. In addition, many public schools in the U.S today strive to educate students and inform their actions with personal values. Schools enforce these educational practices by requiring agreements on acceptable use policies and encouraging direct supervision. In sum, generally, educators are not expected to assume a legal expert role in addressing legal and ethical issues in educational technology. However, they should present a broad understanding and best practices of legal and ethical use of learning technologies as they present policy and practice implications. This way, educators model proper use for their students, prevent misuse, and protect themselves from potential legal troubles. Some school districts have provided resources or put policies in place to assist teachers in navigating ethical and legal issues of educational technology. Still, others face limited resources to adequately address the problems or access legal counsel. Understanding that this is a collective responsibility among all stakeholders is the first step in the right direction. Therefore, lawmakers should establish legislation to empower schools to set appropriate policies and procedures. Also, teachers and parents must present best practices and communicate consensus.

Appendix

115

This way, we can expect a better outcome from students concerning digital technologies’ legal and ethical use.

Appendix  ppendix A–Dearborn Public Schools, Student Acceptable A Use Guidelines Student Acceptable Use Guidelines INFORMATION SYSTEMS (INTERNET SAFETY, CIPA). ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY GUIDELINES (STUDENT). Purpose; Scope Access to Information Systems is provided to authorized students under the direct supervision of identified district personnel to enrich and augment their education and training during the time that they are members of the student body of the Dearborn Public Schools (the “District”). The term “Information Systems” includes, but is not limited to, computer hardware, software communications equipment (such as telephones, pagers, computers, palmtops, scanners, digital cameras, and photocopy and facsimile machines), and all communications and information communicated thereby, including e-mail and voice-mail and all communications and information transmitted by, received from, entered into, or stored in these systems. Access to Information Systems will: (1) assist in the collaboration and exchange of information, (2) facilitate personal growth in the use of technology, and (3) enhance information gathering and communication skills. This Information Systems Acceptable Use Policy Guidelines (“Guidelines”) document applies to all Dearborn Public Schools students (“Students”) using any District Information System. The primary use of the District’s Information Systems is to support the academic programs of the District to allow bona fide research and to support school related activities. Other important uses are to facilitate communication and the dissemination of information by, between, and among Students to further the academic programs of the District. Through this and prior versions of its Information Systems Policy Guidelines, the District has restricted the use of all Information Systems to appropriate school-related, educational purposes. At all times and in all instances, Students must adhere to the District’s Acceptable Use Policy.

116

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

No Expectation of Privacy; Monitoring All usage of any Information System, and any electronic data created, sent, received, or stored in the system are, and remain the property of, the Dearborn Public Schools. The District treats ALL electronic data sent, received, or stored over its Information Systems as its business information. As a result, the District has the right to and will periodically assess whether specific Students are using the District’s Information Systems for authorized purposes. Because the Information Systems and all electronic data generated by it and stored in it are the property of the District, Students should understand that they have NO expectation of privacy in their access and use of the District’s Information Systems. Individual requests for unfiltered access to the internet will be requested through the building media specialist and decided upon by a committee consisting of the building media specialist, principal, district media coordinator, and district computer services supervisor. To safeguard and protect the District’s proprietary, confidential, and business-­ sensitive information, and to ensure that the use of the District’s Information Systems is consistent with the District’s educational purposes, the District reserves the right to monitor the use of its Information Systems. This may include the monitoring of a Student’s computer or Internet usage, printing and/or reading of e-mail, and viewing of any other electronic data on its Information Systems. Accordingly, the District reserves the right to monitor and log each Student’s computer and Internet usage to maximize e-mail and fileserver space utilization. Protection, Safety, Security of Minors, CIPA Regulations; Review, Deletion and Disclosure of E-mail; Remote Access Students should be aware that e-mail messages, chat room discussions, instant messaging, and any other form of direct electronic communication, including District correspondence, might be read by other students, District employees, or outsiders under certain circumstances. The District has the capability to access, review, copy, delete, or block any form of direct electronic communication sent, received or stored on the District’s Information Systems. The District may be required to produce, and thus reserves the right to access, review, copy, or delete, or block all such messages for any purposes and to disclose them to any party (inside or outside the Dearborn Public Schools) that it deems appropriate or necessary to protect the safety and security of minors. The District is in complete compliance with CIPA (Children’s Internet Protection Act). Should Student users make incidental use of the e-mail systems to transmit personal messages, such messages will be treated no differently than other messages; the district reserves the right to access, review, copy, delete or disclose such messages for any purpose. Access to the District’s Information Systems shall be from the student’s class workspace and no remote tie-in to the district’s Information Systems shall be allowed without the prior written approval of the District. Any problems or

Appendix

117

unauthorized charges, which arise from the use of a Student’s remote access account, are the responsibility of the student’s parent/guardian. Passwords; User Responsibilities All Pass codes, passwords, ID.’s and encrypted information are the property of the Dearborn Public Schools. No Student may use a pass code, password, I.D. or method of encryption that has not been issued specifically to that Student by the Dearborn Public Schools. In other words, no Student may give, even on a temporary basis, his or her pass code, password, or I.D. to another Student or staff member without prior written approval by the District. No Student may use, even on a temporary basis, the pass code, password, or I.D. of any other Student or staff member without prior written approval by the District. Every Student is responsible for, and should take all reasonable precautions to protect, his or her pass code, password, and I.D. Each Student is advised that transferring files, shareware, and other software can transmit computer viruses and should exercise extreme care and caution in doing so. The Student will be liable to pay the cost or fee of any file, shareware, or software transferred or affected, whether intentional or accidental. Prohibited Uses; Filtering; Enforcement While cognizant of freedom of speech and equal access to information concerns, the use of the District’s Information Systems to engage in any communications that are in violation of District policy or applicable laws, including but not limited to obtaining, transmitting or posting defamatory, discriminatory, obscene, sexually explicit, pornographic, offensive or harassing information, material, or messages or disclosing personal information, in the form of visual depictions, text, or sound without authorization from a committee consisting of a building media specialist, principal district media coordinator and district computer services supervisor, is prohibited. Students may not at any time access areas of the Internet that the District considers unsuitable for viewing. To actively enforce this guideline, the District has reserved the right to load filtering software on its Information Systems to prohibit access to such sites. The use of the District’s Information Systems is a privilege, which may be revoked by the District at any time and for any reason. The District reserves all rights to any material stored in files which are generally accessible to others and may remove any information which the District, in its sole discretion, deems to be unauthorized. Any misuse of the Student’s access to the District’s Information Systems or violation of any other provisions of this guideline may result in the suspension or termination of the Student’s access to the District’s Information Systems and/or other disciplinary action as the District may determine. Disciplinary action may include:

118

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

• Banning the student’s use of school information technology • Having the student make full financial restitution for any unauthorized expenses incurred or any damages caused • Facing other disciplinary action in keeping with the disciplinary policies and guidelines of the school district up to litigation and / or expulsion Each Student is responsible for adhering to this guideline as well as any specific security guidelines and procedures issued periodically by duly authorized representatives of the District. Students learning of any misuse of the District’s Information Systems or violations of this guideline shall immediately notify their instructor. Any building instructor who learns of misuse or who is notified of misuse shall immediately notify the building principal. The building principal will take appropriate disciplinary action as outlined in the District’s Student Code of Conduct. Any of the following activities shall be deemed violations of this guideline. A. Unauthorized attempts of hacking or any other unlawful online activities to access any Information Systems, whether belonging to the Dearborn Public Schools or any other institution, organization or individual. B. Any alteration of the District’s Information Systems without prior written authorization. C. Introducing viruses, applications, scripts or applets which may harm or impede the operation and functioning of the District’s Information Systems, whether such introduction is in public or private files and/or messages. D. Authorship, dissemination or viewing of unauthorized information or material on the District’s Information Systems, in the form of visual depictions, text or sound, including information that is strictly for personal purposes or which is not in furtherance of the educational purposes of the District; unlawful, obscene, sexually explicit, pornographic, discriminatory or abusive material, or any material that disparages students or staff material which is for commercial or for-­ profit purposes including, without limitation, advertising; material consisting of political lobbying; and any other material which the District deems to be unauthorized. E. Using District time and resources for personal, commercial or for-profit purposes or other non-District related gain. F. Sending or posting the District’s confidential materials outside the District or inside the District to non-authorized personnel. This includes the non-­authorized disclosure of personal identification information of minors. G. Unauthorized downloading and/or installing of any computer application on the District’s Information Systems, whether purchased, shareware, or freeware. H. Refusing to cooperate with a security investigation. I. Using the District’s Information Systems, whether directly or indirectly, for any malicious act. J. Using the District’s Information Systems to plagiarize, copy, download, forward and/or transmit any form of intellectual property protected by copyright laws.

References

119

No Warranty; No Liability; Release The District will neither warrant that the Information Systems will meet any specific requirements the Student may have, nor that the Information Systems will be without error or provide uninterrupted service. The District shall not be liable for any direct or indirect, incidental, or consequential damages (including lost data, information, or time) sustained or incurred in connection with the use, operation, or inability to use the Information Systems. The District shall have no liability for any cause of action or other claim arising from the use of the Information Systems, including both authorized and unauthorized uses thereof. By using the District’s Information Systems, each Student releases the District and its operations and administrations from any and all claims of any nature arising from any use or inability to use the District’s Information Systems resources. Modification of Guideline From time-to-time, the District may modify or amend its Information Systems Acceptable Use Policy Guidelines including its acceptable use rules and guidelines.

References A Platform for Good. (n.d.). Cyber bullying legislation. https://aplatformforgood.org/cyber-­ bullying-­legislation. Accessed 2020, September 28. Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M., & Yu, C. (2018). Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fake-­news-­trends.pdf. Accessed 2022, March 03. Anderson, M. (2018). A majority of teens have experienced some form of cyberbullying. https:// www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/09/27/a-­majority-­of-­teens-­have-­experienced-­some-­form-­ of-­cyberbullying. Accessed 2020, September 23. AP News. (2019). Texas school district ordered to pay $9.2M in copyright suit. https://apnews. com/article/fab401d4af034c9687e10e16e99e0582. Accessed 2022, February 22. Ben-Joseph, E.  P. (2018). Internet safety. https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/net-­safety.html. Accessed 2020, September 4. Berryhill, A. (2019). Why students plagiarize. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/why-­ students-­plagiarize. Accessed 2022, February 28. Brown, A. H., & Green, T. D. (2015). Securing the connected classroom: Technology planning to keep students safe (kindle edition). International Society for Technology in education. bullyingstatistics.org. (n.d.). http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/cyber-­bullying-­statistics. html. Accessed 2020, September 15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Youth risk behavior surveillance system (YRBSS). https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/index.htm. Accessed 2020, September 15. Challenge Success. (2012). Cheat or be cheated? What we know about academic integrity in middle & high schools & what we can do about it. Standard University Graduate School of Education. https://www.challengesuccess.org/wp-­content/uploads/2015/07/ChallengeSuccess-­ AcademicIntegrity-­WhitePaper.pdf. Accessed 2020, August 19.

120

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

Connell, N. (2013). Criminal charges don’t deter bullies: Opposing view. https://www.usatoday. com/story/opinion/2013/10/23/bullying-­bullies-­rebecca-­sedwick-­nadine-­connell-­editorials-­ debates/3173171. Accessed 2020, September 28. Copyright Clearing Center. (2020). So, what is (and isn’t) protected by copyright? https://www. copyright.com/learn/what-­isnt-­protected-­copyright. Accessed 2020, August 24. Cyberbullying Research Center. (2015). What is cyberbullying? https://cyberbullying.org/what-­is-­ cyberbullying. Accessed 2018, September 18. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). (2021). October is national cybersecurity awareness month. https://www.cisa.gov/news/2019/10/01/october-­national-­cybersecurity-­ awareness-­month. Accessed 2022, March 01. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. (n.d.). National cybersecurity awareness month (NCSAM). https://www.cisa.gov/national-­cyber-­security-­awareness-­month. Accessed 2020, September 4. dearbornschools.org. (n.d.). Student acceptable use guidelines. https://dearbornschools.org/ student-­acceptable-­use-­guidelines. Accessed 2020, October 1. DigitalBridgeK-12. (n.d.). Acceptable use policy. https://digitalbridgek12.org/toolkit/research-­ options/acceptable-­use-­policy. Accessed 2020, October 1. Education World. (n.d.). Acceptable use policies (AUP) for the Internet. https://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr093.shtml. Accessed 2022, March 06. Federal Communications Commision. (2019). Children's internet protection act (CIPA). https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/childrens-­internet-­protection-­act. Accessed 2020, September 2. Federal Trade Commission. (2002). Protecting children’s privacy under COPPA: A survey on compliance. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/rules/children%E2%80%99s-­ online-­privacy-­protection-­rule-­coppa/coppasurvey.pdf. Accessed 2020, September 2. Federal Trade Commission. (2013). Revised Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule goes into effect today. https://www.ftc.gov/news-­events/press-­releases/2013/07/revised-­childrens-­ online-­privacy-­protection-­rule-­goes-­effect. Accessed 2022, March 01. Federal Trade Commission. (n.d.). Children’s online privacy protection rule (“COPPA”). https:// www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-­regulatory-­reform-­proceedings/childrens-­online-­ privacy-­protection-­rule. Accessed 2020, September 2. Finkelhor, D., Walsh, K., Jones, J., Mitchell, K., & Collier, A. (2020). Youth internet safety education: Aligning programs with the evidence base. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(5), 1233–1247. Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., & Guzzo, B. A. (2000). Second step: Preventing aggression by promoting social competence. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(2), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/106342660000800206 Gaffney, H., Farrington, D. P., Espelage, D. L., & Ttofi, M. M. (2018). Are cyberbullying intervention and prevention programs effective? A systematic and meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45, 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.002 Harris, M. (2020). An elementary school teacher asked parents to wear clothes and avoid appearing with ‘big joints’ in the background of Zoom classes. https://www.insider.com/elementary-­ school-­teacher-­asks-­parents-­to-­behave-­appropriately-­2020-­9. Accessed 2020, September 21. Hartney, E. (2010). 10 basic rules of netiquette or internet etiquette. https://www.verywellmind. com/ten-­rules-­of-­netiquette-­22285. Accessed 2020, September 9. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2015). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying (second edition). Corwin. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.  W. (2018). Cyberbullying identification, prevention, and response. https://cyberbullying.org/Cyberbullying-­I dentification-­P revention-­R esponse-­2 018.pdf. Accessed 2020, September 23. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.  W. (2019). 2019 cyberbullying data. https://cyberbullying.org/2019-­ cyberbullying-­data. Accessed 2020, September 23. https://www.oercommons.org. (n.d.). OER commons. Accessed 2020, August 31.

References

121

Hyde, L. (2018). Freedom to teach: Claiming educational fair use. https://cyber.harvard.edu/ research/freedomtoteach. Accessed 2020, August 31. International Journal for Educational Integrity. (n.d.). Call for Papers  – Machine-based plagiarism: The death of originality in the digital age? https://edintegrity.biomedcentral.com/mbp. Accessed 2020, August 20. John, A., Glendenning, A.  C., Marchant, A., Montgomery, P., Stewart, A., Wood, S., Lloyd, K., & Hawton, K. (2018). Self-harm, suicidal behaviors, and cyberbullying in children and young people: Systematic review. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5934539. Accessed 2020, September 23. Karna, A., Voeten, M., Little, T.  D., Alanen, E., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 1–3 and 7–9. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 535–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031120 Kerry, C. F. (2018). Why protecting privacy is a losing game today—and how to change the game. https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-­protecting-­privacy-­is-­a-­losing-­game-­today-­and-­ how-­to-­change-­the-­game. Accessed 2020, September 3. Kosciw, J.  G., Greytak, E.  A., Giga, N.  M., Villenas, C., & Danischewski, D.  J. (2016). The 2015 national school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2020-­01/ GLSEN%202015%20National%20School%20Climate%20Survey%20%28NSCS%29 %20-­%20Full%20Report.pdf. Accessed 2020, September 23. Lagola, K. (2021). A teacher’s guide to copyright and fair use. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia. org/article/teachers-­guide-­copyright-­and-­fair-­use. Accessed 2022, February 22. Lesisko, L. J., Mauro, R. D., & Sebelin, J. S. (2018). Plagiarism: A guide for K-12 online learners. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED608766.pdf. Accessed 2022, February 26. Li, Q. (2005). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools. https://citeseerx. ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.520.3422&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 2020, September 16. Matecki, L. A. (2010). Update: COPPA is ineffective legislation! Next steps for protecting youth privacy rights in the social networking era. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=njlsp. Accessed 2020, September 2. McCabe, D. L. (1999). Academic dishonesty among high school students. Adolescence, 34(136), 681–687. Merriam-webster.com. (n.d.). Definition of plagiarize. https://www.merriam-­webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize. Accessed 2020, August 18. Michigan Department of Attorney General. (n.d.). Michigan Cyber Safety Initiative. https://www. michigan.gov/documents/ag/Michigan_CSI_Program_Summary_200688_7.pdf. Accessed 2020, September 2. Mitchell, K. J., Jones, L. M., Turner, H., Blachman-Demner, D., & Kracke, K. (2016). The role of technology in youth harassment victimization. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250079.pdf. Accessed 2020, September 29. Morrow, S. (2009). Plagiarism: What is it, exactly? https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/ plagiarism-­what-­is-­it-­exactly. Accessed 2020, August 18. National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Indicator 10: Bullying at school and electronic bullying. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/ind_10.asp. Accessed 2020, September 15. National Crime Prevention Council. (n.d.). Stop cyberbullying before it starts. http://archive.ncpc. org/resources/files/pdf/bullying/cyberbullying.pdf. Accessed 2020, September 23. National Cybersecurity Alliance. (n.d.). About us. https://staysafeonline.org/about. Accessed 2020, September 2. National Education Association (NEA). (2019). 2019 handbook. http://www.gpsnetwork.org/ assets/docs/2019_NEA_Handbook.pdf. Accessed 2020, October 1. Neelakantan, S. (2019). Why K–12 students need to be taught to guard their data online. https:// edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2019/12/why-­k-­12-­students-­need-­be-­taught-­guard-­their-­ data-­online. Accessed 2020, September 2.

122

6  Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology

Notar, C. E., Padgett, S., & Roden, J. (2013). Cyberbullying: A review of the literature. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 1(1), 1–9. oercommons.org. (n.d.). Open education resources. https://www.oercommons.org. Accessed 2022, February 28. Plagiarism.org. (2017). What is plagiarism? https://www.plagiarism.org/article/what-­is-­plagiarism. Accessed 2020, August 18. Reiney, E. (n.d.). Bullying prevention and response training and continuing education online program. https://www.stopbullying.gov/sites/default/files/2017-­09/training-­module-­2016.pdf. Accessed 2022, March 05. Riggs, M. (2013). Criminalizing cyberbullying could ruin more lives than it'll save. https://www. bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-­10-­25/criminalizing-­cyber-­bullying-­could-­ruin-­more-­ lives-­than-­it-­ll-­save. Accessed 2020, September 28. Robinson, L. K., Brown, A. B., & Green, T. D. (2010). Excerpted from security vs. access. https:// id.iste.org/handlers/ProductAttachment.ashx?ProductID=4IHSHiRRmEk=&Type=excerpts. Accessed 2020, September 4. Shea, V. (2011). Netiquette. http://www.albion.com/catNetiquette.html. Accessed 2020, September 7. Starr, L. (2015). Is fair use a license to steal? Part 2 of a series on copyright and fair use. Education World. https://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/curr280b.shtml. Accessed 2020, August 31. Stopbullying.gov. (2020). What is bullying? https://www.stopbullying.gov/bullying/what-­is-­ bullying. Accessed 2020, September 15. Stratford, S. (1995). What’s a (teacher, parent, administrator) to do? https://www.december.com/ cmc/mag/1995/jun/stratford.html. Accessed 2020, September 30. Technology & Learning. (n.d.). https://www.scoe.org/blog_files/copyright_chart.pdf. Accessed 2022, June 4. Turnitin.com. (2015). Turnitin effectiveness: Plagiarism prevention in U.S. high schools. http:// go.turnitin.com/paper/effectiveness-­secondary-­education. Accessed 2020, August 20. Turnitin.com. (n.d.). We’re passionate about helping students learn. https://www.turnitin.com/ about. Accessed 2020, August 20. U.S.  Copyright Office. (2019). Circular 1: Copyright basic. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/ circ01.pdf. Accessed 2020, August 24. U.S. Copyright Office. (n.d.-a). Chapter 1: Subject matter and scope of copyright. https://www. copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#110. Accessed 2020, August 25. U.S. Copyright Office. (n.d.-b). Chapter 1: More information on fair use. https://www.copyright. gov/fair-­use/more-­info.html. Accessed 2020, August 25. U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Family educational rights and privacy act (FERPA). https:// www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html. Accessed 2020, September 2. U.S.  Department of Education. (n.d.). Protecting student privacy. https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/ training. Accessed 2020, September 3. University of Michigan-Dearborn. (n.d.) EDT 501–research, trends, and issues in educational technology. Graduate catalog. http://catalog.umd.umich.edu/graduate/coursesaz/edt. Accessed 2022, August 19. Wang, J. (2017). “David’s Law” would criminalize cyberbullying, mandate school policies. https:// www.texastribune.org/2017/04/11/davids-­law-­criminalizes-­cyberbullying-­mandates-­public-­ schools-­create-­p. Accessed 2020, September 28. Wolpert-Gawron, H. (2012). The importance of internet safety: Keeping children internet safe. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/internet-­safety-­importance-­heather-­wolpert-­gawron. Accessed 2020, September 28.

Chapter 7

Online Learning in K-12 Education

A renewed perspective.

7.1 Introduction Online learning is a method of instruction that delivers a wide range of learning activities, tools, and resources through the Internet (Digital Learning Collaborative, 2019). Examples of online learning in K-12 include but are not limited to practices where the entire curriculum is offered online, or interactions among and between students and teachers are conducted mainly or entirely at a distance. It is also possible that online learning can be a component of planned learning activities for classroom instruction. Regardless, the Digital Learning Collaborative argued that the “descriptions” and “characterizations” of online learning are more vital than their definition because the emphasis should be on the quality of the instructional activities rather than whether or not it fits a specific description. This understanding of online learning guided the discussions presented in this chapter. Historically, K-12 students in U.S. schools have mainly received face-to-face learning opportunities. However, in the last two decades, online learning options in primary and secondary education have increasingly become available, as they offer customized instruction for students. Therefore, the present chapter first examines online learning applications in K-12 education, addressing accessibility, mobility, and credibility. Next, the writer focuses on blended learning developments in primary and secondary education. Further, the chapter discusses the remote learning surge under the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the chapter addresses current trends and issues concerning K-12 online learning. Finally, the chapter summarizes the critical issues discussed and addresses the implications for policy and practices. The discussion provided in this chapter applied three primary resources. First, the author conducted an extensive literature review on the chapter’s central focus— online learning in K-12 education–through multiple databases, journals, and available web resources. Second, the writer’s reflections on 20  years of professional teaching and research experiences at a comprehensive research university in the U.S. confirm the discussion presented in the chapter. Significant published scholarship regarding technology integration in teacher preparation programs and trends © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Duran, Learning Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18111-5_7

123

124

7  Online Learning in K-12 Education

and issues pertinent to educational technology further augments this expert perspective. And third, the observations and viewpoints of participants in a graduate-level online course called Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology enrich the chapter’s discussion. The course acquaints the students with research, trends, and issues facing education in the digital era, addressing a wide range of technological developments and investigating key topics concerning technology in the contemporary classroom (University of Michigan-Dearborn, n.d.). The author regularly teaches and collects data from this course. The vital viewpoint of practicing teachers who take the course offers the perspective from the field as they experience the critical developments in online learning in their schools and their practice within them.

7.2 Purpose of the Chapter In contrast to higher education, online learning applications in U.S. K-12 schools are still developing. Therefore, this chapter aims to examine the online learning developments in primary and secondary education. As Piccianno and Seaman (2009) argued, investigating the application and issues concerning online teaching and learning in K-12 and informing the students, parents, and educators who consider the online option may be critical to expanding their choices and associated educational opportunities. As online learning initiatives continue, K-12 schools seem to prefer blended learning at this particular stage. Thus, the chapter aims to inform the readers about the developments in this specific area. This way, the writer seeks to assist the readers in varying blended learning opportunities and the lessons learned from the early adopters. During the 2021 and 2022, K-12 schools in the U.S. experienced a remote learning surge under the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, the chapter investigates the schools’ sudden move to remote learning and its issues. This way, the audiences will gain a perspective on the challenges students, teachers, and parents experienced and the responses generated by the education stakeholders to address the issues. In addition, the reader might find it helpful to hear about the discussions related to the long-term impact of remote learning experiences for K-12 schooling in the U.S.. Finally, the chapter emphasizes current trends and issues on K-12 online learning and discusses the implications for policy and practices. This way, educators should better understand the potential and challenges of online learning in K-12 education.

7.3 Online Learning In most parts, K-12 education in the U.S. includes face-to-face instruction. Lips (2010) reported that factors beyond students’ control, such as geography and parents’ financial means, shaped this “limited opportunity.” He argued that the recent

7.3  Online Learning

125

developments in online learning had brought new opportunities, as students can receive customized instruction from educators anywhere in the country. Lips described this development as a “learning revolution.” Lips (2010) highlighted that online learning programs differ from traditional education, including their scope, teacher interaction, physical location, jurisdiction, and range of students served. The author further pointed out that online programs can be both comprehensive or supplemental to students’ education. For example, he explained that some online learning programs are entirely online, in which students do not attend a traditional school but learn online. In other cases, students have the opportunity to supplement their formal education by taking individual courses online, such as enrolling in an elective class not offered by their school. There are multiple ways to offer online education, such as synchronous or asynchronous instruction. Student and teacher interaction takes place in real-time during synchronous instruction. The asynchronous structure offers more freedom schedule-­ wise, allowing students to do work and learn in their own time and pace. Either way, teachers and students engage in instructional activities, such as discussions, projects, assignments, and grading. Typically, online learning programs necessitate communication between teachers and students to be done through modes like phone or video conferencing, e-mail, or instant messaging in synchronous or asynchronous settings. Physical locations of online programs also vary. Some programs do not specify a physical location, like students joining the program from home. Other online learning programs use a physical site like a school. Furthermore, as discussed later, some schools combine face-to-face instruction with online learning, creating a blended learning environment. Online learning programs receive funding from public or private sources (Lips, 2010). For example, public programs receive funding from the state or school district. As a result, students can enroll in online programs, individual classes, or virtual schools at no cost. In addition, Lips reported that some states provide options for “cyber schools” or virtual charter schools that students can enroll in full-time. The author further wrote that even though local chartering authorities have the jurisdictions for the publicly available online learning programs, students have the potential to receive education across district, state, and even national borders in some cases. Online learning programs serve a range of students. However, Lips (2010) reported that most K-12 online learning programs aid students in high schools. Piccianno and Seaman (2009) noted that 64% of students enrolled in full-time online programs are in 9–12 grades. Elementary education students (grades K-5) constitute 21%. The remaining 15% include middle school students (grades 6–8). The authors further reported that online programs serve a diverse range of students taking advanced coursework to remedial education. As part of the class discussion about online learning in K-12 education during the fall 2021 semester, one of the students in the Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology course posted the following reflections at the end of a week-long discussion:

126

7  Online Learning in K-12 Education

Throughout the week, I have learned many new things about online learning. I am very surprised by the number of students who take online classes. It seemed like only a few students at my high school took online classes…I thought it was very interesting that the online class that is generated through the Internet contains a teacher with a Michigan Teaching Certificate. Students can then select courses from an online catalog. Finally, I had many “aha” moments while reading the different articles. The most important thing that I realized was that online classes are becoming so popular because technology is becoming so prominent in people's lives. People would much rather take an online class with the technology that they have instead of showing up to a classroom. People who take online classes are able to take the class at home and outside of a traditional classroom. Many people would prefer this way of learning way more than face-to-face interaction. It is crazy to think of all of the possibilities that online learning has for the future. Who knows when traditional classroom learning will no longer be needed and wanted? Technology is evolving every day and we never know what new advancements will change the way we learn.

The sample passage above summarizes the feeling of many educators concerning online learning in K-12 education and highlights multiple discussion points. First, it presents a particular sense of surprise and amazement regarding the number of online courses students take. Then, it recognizes access to high-quality teachers and a range of online classes that students can choose from and participate in remotely. And finally, it highlights the possibilities with the anticipated shift in online learning preference, particularly in the foreseeable future. The following section mimics the reflections presented in the above short extract from a class discussion and provides a more detailed discussion about accessibility, mobility, and credibility in K-12 online learning in the U.S.

7.3.1 Accessibility The U.S. has been experiencing a growing number of students accessing online learning nationwide. Piccianno and Seaman (2009) reported that an increase in online learning in K-12 was noticeable a decade ago. The authors documented over one million K-12 students participating in online courses in 2007–2008, a 47% increase compared to the previous school year. Lips (2010) further pointed out that by the time of his report, 27 states in the U.S. were offering virtual schools attendable statewide that allowed students to take online classes, and 24 states in addition to the district of Columbia allowed students to attend virtual school full-time. Additionally, a number of school districts started offering blended or full-time online learning courses more than a decade ago (Watson, 2005). In a 2009 survey by the Sloan Consortium, it was found that 75% of school districts had at least one student participating in online learning. Further, 66% of school districts with students who participated in online learning in some capacity expected that their participation would increase (Piccianno & Seaman, 2009). Lips (2010) reported that independent online learning programs extended the offer to parents and students. They included companies like K12. Inc., Connections Academy, APEX Learning, and Edgenuity.

7.3  Online Learning

127

The majority of online learning programs include three basic models: (a) students taking all their courses online, (b) students taking some online courses as a supplement to their regular in-person classes, and (c) hybrid or blended schools that combine in-person and online classes (Evergreen Education Group, 2017). In less than 10 years of the earlier reports above highlighting the growth in online learning in the U.S., the number of students taking part in digital learning almost tripled. Connection Academy (n.d.) reported that in the 2013–2014 school year, more than 2.7 million students across the U.S. were taking part in digital learning. From the 2009–2010 academic year to the 2013–2014 academic year, there was an 80% increase in K-12 students participating in online and blended learning. Connection Academy further reported that within the same time frame, school districts offering online or blended courses increased 50%, reaching out to 75% of the school districts in the U.S.. Full-time online public school enrollment growth was also noticeable, showing a 58% increase from 20,000 students in the 2009–2010 school year to 315,000 students in 2013–2014 (Connection Academy, n.d.). Digital Learning Collaborative (2019) reported that some digital learning areas in the U.S. are growing while others are stabilizing. The report highlighted that enrollment in online schools that serve students across entire states increases slowly but steadily, at about 6% per year. The Digital Learning Collaborative noted that the ratio of students in online schools was around 2% or less in all states (Fig. 7.1). The 2019

States with Statewide Fully Online Schools FIGURE 1: NUMBER

OF STUDENT ENROLLMENTS BY STATE AND PERCENTAGE OF STATE'S K–12 POPULATION

Number of Enrollments in SY 2017–18 35,833 25,000 20,331 19,395

VT

14,000

AZ

11,089

SD

AZ

CO

KS

OK

NM

OH

IN

WV MO

KY

9,803

VA

CT

RI

MA

NJ

8,296 7,988

25,000

20,000

1.31%

10,000

.86%

KS

1.75%

UT

1.23% .75%

LA

.70%

NC

.20%

NM

1.01%

2,816

AR

.59%

2,459

AL

5,000

.34%

MA

.23%

TN

.20%

999

WY

1.07%

904

IA

.19%

796

ME

.46%

2,123

15,000

1.76%

SC

1.15%

HI

30,000

.40%

OR

1.91%

FL

35,000

FL

ID

1,925

40,000

1.64%

WI

3,285

LA

AK

OK

NV

4,461

Fully online schools

GA

1.22%

5,578 5,094

SC AL

.78%

IN

5,640

6,471

MD DE DC

1.27%

MN

WA

9,611

NC

TN AR MS

TX

MI PA

IL

UT

NY

WI IA

NE

NV CA

10,221

NH

WY

1.11% .26%

ME

MN

OH

1.97%

11,380 ND

.40% 1.20%

TX

13,280 WA

1.76%

GA CO

13,752

ID

2.09%

CA

14,160

17,977

MT

% of state K–12 population*

PA MI

25,823

OR

State

2k

258

NH

.15%

180

D.C.

.20%

1k 0 500

Fig. 7.1  States with statewide fully online schools, number of student enrolment by state, and percentage of state’s K-12 population. (Reproduced by permission of the publisher, digitallearningcollab.com 2019)

128

7  Online Learning in K-12 Education

report also counted 31 states with statewide online schooling, serving an estimated 310,000 nationwide. Digital Learning Collaborative (2019) argued that State virtual schools are critical to online learning initiatives, serving over 420,000 students nationwide. Their impact on supplemental online course enrollments was recorded in 2016–2017, reaching about one million students in 23 states. They also provide services to school districts in their infrastructure, professional development, and other online learning-related services. In recent years, this sector has also stabilized. Counting course enrollment where one student taking one semester-long online course, Digital Learning Collaborative (2019) reported Florida Virtual School as the largest state virtual school, which received 485,000-course registrations in 2016–2017. North Carolina Virtual Public School is another state with more than 100,000 enrollment counts. Other large schools include Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, New Hampshire, and South Carolina concerning their student populations. However, state virtual schools’ growth has slowed in the last couple of years: course enrollments grew by under 4% from 2016 to 2017 (Digital Learning Collaborative, 2019). Digital Learning Collaborative (2019) reported that about half of course enrollments in 2016–2017 were for math, science, language arts, and social studies subjects. In addition, electives such as health and fitness, driver’s education, and World Languages compromised another half of state virtual school course enrollments. The report also pointed out that challenges associated with the availability of qualified World Language teachers on school campuses seem to be the main reason districts rely on online offerings. State virtual schools started offering supplementary classes predominantly at the high school level, and still, 80% of enrollments remain in grades 9–12 (Digital Learning Collaborative, 2019). However, offering classes geared toward primary education students has been a more recent development. Most state virtual schools currently serve students in 5–12 grades, and several others include all K–12 spectrum.

7.3.2 Mobility Online learning is a convenient choice for some students in the U.S., but it might be the only option for others. Often, limited resources in various impoverished areas create disadvantages for students. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2011), more than 40% of low-income schools require additional aid and assistance to reach educational goals. Hence, online learning gives students in low-income and rural areas the mobility they need to obtain a quality education despite their location or the hosting site. Furthermore, online learning can enhance productivity and reduce the cost of education, lowering the burden on taxpayers (Florida TaxWatch Center for Educational Performance and Accountability, 2007).

7.3  Online Learning

129

Flexible schedule formats delivered by online schools provide another mobility option for virtual learners. Evergreen Education Group (2017) argued that giving students access to courses elusive in their traditional setting was one of the main reasons for establishing state virtual schools. To maximize student access, state virtual schools and other online learning providers offer a broader range of flexible scheduling options than the conventional academic year schedule–fall and winter. Evergreen Education Group reported that in addition to traditional semester-long courses, block schedules to open enrollment at any time and rolling registrations with multiple start dates are among the flexible scheduling options. The report included the following examples: Iowa Learning Online follows the traditional academic year and summer semester enrollment schedule. However, fixed terms of various lengths (8 through 17-week periods) plus 10-week open enrollment courses for credit recovery are available at Illinois Virtual School. On the other hand, ACCESS Alabama offers year-long courses, single semester and trimester programs, and block and half-block choices. In addition to the flexible schedule discussion, California Virtual Academies (n.d.) argued the following advantages. First, online schools allow learning in non-­ classroom environments in such a way as to benefit those students who may not succeed in traditional settings. For instance, conventional schools follow a strict schedule for daily activities. However, in online schools, students have more flexibility to complete assigned tasks, working at their own pace and time to achieve educational goals. Other advantages include expanded parental engagement in participating in students’ instructional activities and relatively fewer distractions to the learning process in the home setting. Furthermore, given that students save travel time to school and back, the additional time allows students to consider other educational and social activities. Finally, with a possible consistent curriculum, students can maintain a continuing education if their family moves to another place. Evergreen Education Group (2017) reported that traditionally, K-12 schools offer college and career readiness programs. Similarly, virtual schools are now offering online courses for students considering higher education or interested in career and technical education. In addition, the report listed math remediation, ACT preparation, and college planning tools to prepare students for post-secondary education.

7.3.3 Credibility Multiple factors seem to impact public opinion about the credibility of online learning, such as instructional effectiveness, social interaction considerations, completion rates, and teacher credentials. In 2009, the U.S.  Department of Education published data from a survey of evidence-­based studies done on K-12 and postsecondary online learning programs (Means et  al., 2009). The study reported several significant findings concerning “older” learners in career education, medical training, and higher education

130

7  Online Learning in K-12 Education

programs. The study findings included the impact that online learning approaches had on various contents and learner types, the effect of online learning outcomes compared to traditional classroom instruction, and online learning being more conducive to expanding learning time. However, the authors cautioned the readers from generalizing to the K–12 population because they had identified only a few publications of rigorous research in the literature that contrasted online and in-person learning conditions among K-12 students. In other words, as Lips (2010) noted, there was limited data concerning how effective K-12 online learning programs are. The literature highlighted a couple of other studies conducted in the following years concerning online learning in K-12 education. Yet, as Loeb (2020) noted, there was still not extensive, rigorous research investigating the impact of online learning in primary and secondary grades. Loeb argued that online courses certainly provided multiple opportunities for students, such as taking an elective course like statistics that was not offered at the school, enrolling in a class that provides additional help for challenging topics like algebra, or retaking courses for credit recovery. However, the author cited multiple studies conducted at the high school level comparing online and in-person courses and reported that online courses were less effective than in-person classes for most students (see Heppen et al., 2017; Ahn & McEachin, 2017; Hart et al., 2019). For Loeb (2020), the abovementioned findings were unsurprising because being in a classroom alongside a teacher and other students present provides more pressure on the student and helps student motivation and engagement. In addition, the author noted that some students do well in face-to-face and online courses. However, Loeb asserted that students who perform poorly in schools do poorly in online learning. The author also added that while the research at the K-12 level was minimal, high-performing adult students seem to function similarly in online and in-­ person settings. Loeb concluded that online instructional design should consider the needs of less-engaged students and work to motivate them. Social interaction is another consideration for online programs. Educators know that students attend schools to gain academic skills and socialization through interaction with other students and teachers. Loeb (2020) argued that social interaction might be limited in online learning compared to classroom instruction. Still, the author pointed out that research-based best practices indicate multiple strategies to support virtual students who need improved socialization. In addition, Loeb emphasized that most online courses serving K-12 students follow similar formats used in in-person classes. The author described student interactions and content learning engagement in both cases exist. In addition, group discussion, collaborative learning, project-based learning, and assessment and feedback are standard practices in both settings. However, Loeb acknowledged that students might have further distractions and less supervision in the online environment, possibly reducing motivation. California Virtual Academies (n.d.) also addressed the socialization issue, describing both advantages and challenges of attending school online. The discussion included removing students from possible “negative” social engagement like bullying and harassment as the cited advantages when parents consider online

7.4  Blended Learning

131

schooling for their children. However, California Virtual Academies also noted that for some students learning at home might create a more isolated environment, impacting a child’s socialization. Course completion rate seems to be another discussion point about online programs’ credibility in K-12 education. Digital Learning Collaborative (2019) reported a reasonable degree of variation in the completion rate practiced by state virtual schools. The report noted that most state virtual schools define course completion by considering a passing grade typically involving 60% or higher achievement generally identified with letter grades C, D, or better. For example, students receiving a D or better grade finish a virtual school in the Florida Virtual School system, funded on course completions. Several other virtual schools consider a 70% or above grade as a completion requirement. Some state virtual schools characterize course completion by any final grade issued regardless of the letter grade received, including an F and Withdrawal. Examples of satisfaction also exist if students retain themselves in the course until the course is closed. Finally, a small percentage of state virtual schools accept students conducting 90% or more of a course as complete. This wide array of completion expectations implemented in different online programs seems like a factor adding to the credibility debate. The literature also discusses teacher employment and compensation in online courses. For example, Digital Learning Collaborative (2019) reported that many state virtual schools depend significantly on part-time instructors to operate online courses. The report further elaborated that 15 out of 18 state virtual schools rely on part-time instructors; six programs hire no full-time educators, instead solely utilizing part-time teachers. However, the report mentioned that Florida Virtual School takes a different route, almost exclusively working with full-time teachers. Teacher compensation appears to follow a similar pattern in nearly all state virtual schools. Digital Learning Collaborative (2019) noted that part-time teachers receive payments based on enrollment. This compensation varies from $130 to over $200 per student based on teacher experience, and the course taught. However, Digital Learning Collaborative reported a similar payment arrangement for full-time teachers in virtual and traditional schools.

7.4 Blended Learning In its simplest form, blended learning refers to any combination of online learning and in-person instruction (Digital Learning Collaborative, 2019). However, there are also different ways of characterizing blended learning. For instance, in an interview by Newcomb (2020), Anthony Salcito, vice president of Microsoft Education, described that the blended learning structure involves taking the most successful parts of online learning and combining them with the importance of in-person interactions between students and instructors. Mr. Salcito further elaborated that “students must not feel they are missing out, whether in the classroom or home.” In other words, Salcito said that blending technology’s affordances with valuable

132

7  Online Learning in K-12 Education

in-person meeting time creates an effective instructional process. Reflecting on the interview with Mr. Salcio, Newcomb (2020) highlighted that “done right, technology expands the boundaries of the classroom, so students learn and connect no matter where they are physically.” Watson (2008) described blended learning as a vigorous instructional method that integrates the best of both online and face-to-face settings. He elaborated that merging online and in-person delivery has been in place for some time. Some schools called this teaching method “blended,” others “hybrid,” and others do not name it. Nevertheless, the author concluded that schools are executing a strategy that they believe helps their students. Watson also noted more descriptive definitions of blended learning exist in the literature, considering a certain percentage of online delivery. For instance, the Sloan Consortium characterized blended education as a form of course delivery, where 30–79% of the content is delivered online (see Allen et al., 2007). Dziuban et al. (2004) brought another perspective to the discussion and defined blended learning as a “pedagogical approach.” The authors argued that educators should consider blended learning as a critical redesign of the instructional strategies rather than a ratio of delivery methods where the effectiveness of social interaction in classroom teaching and the possibilities of enhanced learning activities through technology are combined. Regardless of the exact definition, many schools and programs apply blended instruction. Watson (2008) reported multiple variations of blended learning in practice. First, mixing at the course level combines online and in-person instruction within a single subject. Second, the blending at the institutional level includes regular face-to-face meetings of an online school, for instance, with the teacher physically present or remaining at a distance. Third, another blended model applies to students taking some courses entirely online and attending a traditional classroom for other classes. Watson noted that most state-led supplemental online programs, including Michigan Virtual School and Colorado Online Learning, follow this final structure. District programs like the Hamilton County Virtual School and consortium programs like the Massachusetts-based Virtual High School also implement this hybrid structure. In sum, increasing numbers of school districts in the U.S. offer blended-learning programs through a hybrid structure, and there is no single form that blended education takes. As Watson (2008) argued, we can expect even more variation along the continuum from fully online to entirely face-to-face will be implemented. Yet, the author argued programs implementing blended strategies are still in the early stages. Therefore, Watson indicated that as educators gain critical lessons from the existing programs, several considerations must be in place. First, blended learning must focus on student learning, avoiding demanded boundaries. Second, blended learning requires different methods of instruction than face-to-face or online learning, content development, and teacher professional development. Third, blended learning will need a well-designed learning management system (LMS) to organize the content and facilitate communication between and among the participating students and teachers. This way, a genuinely blended course or program becomes available

7.5  Remote Learning Surge Under COVID-19

133

rather than integrating a few digital elements. Finally, Watson concluded that given that blended learning comes with multiple variations, policymakers should consider flexibility in further directions that may not be feasible at this particular time.

7.5 Remote Learning Surge Under COVID-19 When this section of the present chapter was drafted in late 2021, the U.S. was experiencing the third wave of the Coronavirus outbreak since its inception. The K-12 schools in the U.S. also experienced three waves along the way. First came the “shock” stage, followed by the preparation and adjustment period. Perhaps another wave is underway, requiring reimagining the education enterprise as a whole for the post-pandemic era. Remote learning is where the student and teacher, or teaching and learning sources, are not physically present in a formal school setting. Instead, learning technologies allow instruction to continue synchronously or asynchronously while students and teachers connect remotely. A study published in the early summer of 2020 reported that the massive, system wide shift to remote learning since the beginning of the Coronavirus pandemic created huge frustrations for educators impacting teachers’ morale and students’ engagement (Education Week, 2020). Meanwhile, Education Week noted that K-12 educators deemed upgrading their technology skills faster than before. Another study conducted in the early spring of 2020 reported that most U.S. school districts moved to offer blended learning to address the challenges the pandemic suddenly brought upon them (Lieberman, 2020a). Based on a survey conducted with more than 700 teachers in 40 states, Young (2020) also reported that the sudden move to remote learning revealed gaps in digital literacy. Young further argued that teachers both improvised and exchanged suggestions on what did and did not work with colleagues and served as technical support for students and families even though this was outside their comfort zone. Educators, Young reported, also expressed a lack of adequate technology training. In addition, teachers reported structural problems hindering students’ success beyond their control, such as access to technology and Internet connection. In sum, at this first stage, educators were still trying to figure out how to handle the challenges brought upon them by the unexpected pandemic. Following the initial shock period that the K-12 systems in the U.S. experienced, summertime gave them the needed break to prepare for the upcoming 2020–2021 school year. As a result, the schools turned their attention to reopening plans in the U.S. (Schaffhauser, 2020a)–the preparation phase. Several educational institutions assisted the schools and school districts with their reopening plans. For instance, Johns Hopkins University’s “eSchool+ Initiative” provided an analysis of school reopening plans (Schaffhauser, 2020a). The author reported that the eSchool+ Initiative offered a “policy tracker” where various states’ reopening plans and recommendations were made available in addition to resources for schools. The policy tracker revealed that almost all state boards

134

7  Online Learning in K-12 Education

of education and 13 national organizations had issued policy guidance about their reopening plans. Analyzing the reopening strategies, Johns Hopkins researchers spotted 12 criteria considered necessary by most states: “Core academics; SARS CoV2 protection; Before and after school programs; School access and transportation; Student health services; Food and nutrition; Parent choice; Teacher and staff choice; Children with special needs, English learners and those identified as gifted; Children of poverty and systemic disadvantage; Privacy; and Engagement and transparency” (Schaffhauser, 2020a). However, Schaffhauser noted from the report that a third of the reopening plans were short of fully addressing the issues faced by disadvantaged students even though equity concerns were central to the safe return for low-income and minority children. In addition to the policy tracker discussed above, multiple education associations and technology companies collaborated to develop a rubric to help schools determine their readiness for reopening (Schaffhauser, 2020b). The author reported that the “Back to School Rubric v2.0” identified 29 critical elements under four main categories: “leadership and policy, operations, access and equity, and instruction.” The rubric is available in a Google Doc for public access (Continuous Learning Rubric v2.1, n.d.). Six months later after the pandemic started, during the fall semester of the 2020–2021 academic year, about two-thirds of school systems in the U.S. were practicing hybrid learning (Lieberman, 2020a) and adapting as they go (Dusseault et al., 2020). A national survey that included more than 1000 public school parents in the early fall semester indicated that 58% of students were learning fully online, 18% receiving a mixture of remote and in-person instruction, and less than a quarter of students attending in-person school (Barnum, 2020). The survey also revealed a racial divide, while 75% of Black parents and 68% of Hispanic parents reported their students were entirely online. In contrast, only 48% of white parents declared fully online instruction for their children. Lieberman (2020a) reported that the hybrid model of instruction varied considerably from school to school in the U.S. as a result of multiple factors such as the local rate of COVID-19 transmission in the school district, the availability of funding to support hybrid learning strategies, and the decision of students and teachers to return to school. According to Lieberman, some of the variations included but were not limited to some students willing to learn entirely online or in person. Others were mixing it by spending some school days in-person and others online in their homes. In addition, the author reported that some schools arranged in-person instruction for particular students, such as those who were in special needs courses, English language learners, and students facing homelessness. And yet, Lieberman argued that these approaches were not static, forcing schools to reconsider their decisions based on COVID-19 spread–adjustment period changes. For instance, Burstein (2020) noted that only 22% of U.S. school districts implemented remote learning in early November. Still, a shift necessitated 38% near the end of the month due to a sudden increase in coronavirus cases in mid-November. Lieberman pointed out that many parents and students were grateful for the creative methods that schools took to educate students at this time. However, others protested schools’

7.5  Remote Learning Surge Under COVID-19

135

hesitancy to resume face-to-face instruction. Moreover, some parents voiced confusion over complicated school plans that frequently change. In addition, the author reported that some educators found the demands of hybrid teaching and learning to be profound and difficult, though other instructors expressed an eagerness to adjust. Other early fall 2020 school year reports indicated an ongoing adjustment period. For example, in October 2020, the annual “U.S.  State of Technology” survey revealed that only 20% of the polled teachers and school administrators indicated their schools as being “very prepared to implement remote learning in response to COVID-19,” while in comparison over 40% of those polled said they were “somewhat prepared, having the right IT, but not the processes in place” (Burt, 2020). However, the same report also highlighted that those about 1200 educators surveyed were well adopting remote learning technologies at their schools; about 70% were trying to use technology for instructional purposes, while 95% were implementing online teaching strategies. In addition, only 10% of survey participants indicated challenges to using educational technology required by their schools or districts. Finally, Burt (2020) reported teachers’ varying instructional technology use, such as laptops and desktops (77%), interactive panels and whiteboards (over 50%), and tablets or iPads (39%). On the other hand, the use of projectors, video conferencing, and chat features appear less preferred (less than 30%). Furthermore, Schaffhauser (2020c) reported increased adaptation of e-books in schools with the growth of remote education. Concerning the barriers educators encountered to addressing students’ instructional needs throughout remote or hybrid learning applications, Burt (2020) noted the digital divide as the most concerning issue (31%), tracked by the “Summer, or Covid Slide” (26%) and budget cuts (25%). However, only 6% of survey respondents indicated the lack of technology resources at the district level as their top concern. The author also noted that 43% of respondents highlighted the need for teacher training in technology use. Yet, one-third said their school has “no formal strategy for using technology.” Meanwhile, literature highlighted other studies with teachers and parents being concerned about students falling behind academically due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, in November of 2020, Schwartz (2020) reported that about two-thirds of teachers were concerned about students’ academic progress. Likewise, writing from a Pew Research Center survey, Lardieri (2020) noted most parents’ concerns about their children’s educational development. Looking at the issue from their perspective, teaching in-person and virtual students at once was becoming more common for teachers to have both modalities on their rosters every day. However, Belsha (2020) reported that teachers across the U.S. who were implementing in-person and virtual students simultaneously raised concerns about the quality of instruction. In addition, they were struggling to address student needs in this mixed format. Belsha quoted a middle school teacher as this practitioner reflected on his experience: You want me to be there for the in-person students, and there for the remote kids,...I don’t feel like I’m getting either one.

136

7  Online Learning in K-12 Education

Given the time and energy required for in-person and remote learning, teachers raised fundamental questions about how long they could continue working in this mode, raising questions about long-term sustainability in question (Belsha, 2020). Despite the challenges faced by school communities, current conversation among education leaders indicates possible directions for K-12 education as they reimagine the post-pandemic era. For instance, responding to the question of how technology and COVID-19 would change teaching by 2025, Elliot Soloway, a prominent educational technology leader in the U.S., asserted that digital transformation would accelerate in the next 5 years (Gewertz, 2020). Soloway further argued that learning technologies, particularly 1-to-1 computing, will be readily available because schools have seen the need during the pandemic. Additionally, Soloway said, schools will also address digital dive in a better way to serve those students who need technology equipment for learning. However, he concluded that there still will be a “tension between paper and technology.” Similarly, another study that surveyed more than 375 school district leaders highlighted that one out of five leaders has a favorable position to adopt or continue adopting remote learning after the COVID-19 pandemic indicating student and parent demand for online education in the future years (Schwartz et al., 2020). As for the future of learning technologies in schools, Burt (2020) reported that most educators expect a mix of technology-infused instruction and traditional teaching methods and resources (69%). In addition, most educators anticipate significant growth in remote learning (63%).

7.6 Current Trends in Online Learning Given the historical context and recent developments, current trends related to online learning in K-12 schools in the U.S. bring multiple critical discussion topics to educators’ attention: hybrid schools, independent providers, and “edupreneurs.”

7.6.1 Hybrid Schools Educators closely watch the developments of hybrid schools in the K–12 digital spheres. Typically, hybrid schools have a physical location, but students have a flexible schedule. For instance, schools may require students to be on campus for a number of days during the week, but not necessarily for 5 days. (Digital Learning Collaborative, 2019). In other words, hybrid schools are places where students and parents have flexibility concerning instructional time and space if they prefer. In addition, Digital Learning Collaborative argued that most hybrid schools try to offer individualized attention to student needs, shifting teachers’ roles to have a closer, more personal relationship with students. This way, hybrid schools also redefine teacher roles as they take on new responsibilities and engage in unique teaching and

7.6  Current Trends in Online Learning

137

learning strategies. Digital Learning Collaborative asserted that perhaps these schools are reimagining the teacher role in its context. Watson (2008) further argued that this blended approach would likely be the prevailing instructional model in the near future. Multiple reports pointed out that remote learning momentum gained during the COVID-19 pandemic and the hybrid switch U.S.  K-12 schools made will likely continue to grow over the coming years. In other words, schooling changes that started as a required shift to remote learning due to pandemic restrictions presented a potential for long-term prospects, including hybrid learning. For example, Schaffhauser (2020c) reported that most K-12 educators expect significant growth in remote learning (63%), virtual education (54%), and online content and resources (50%). In addition, looking at the issue from parent perspectives, Torchia (2021) reported about half of the parents are willing to keep their children in online learning if they have a chance (45%), and about a quarter prefer a hybrid model (22%).

7.6.2 Independent Providers In addition to publicly supported online programs offered mainly by states, parents and students are also able to access online learning programs that are independently offered by a range of providers, companies, and universities like Johns Hopkins University. Given the rising popularity of virtual learning, parents, guardians, and students should expect a growing number of opportunities to pursue and purchase online learning services provided by a diverse scope of independent providers (Lips, 2010). Most institutions use online courses from nationally, statewide, and regionally operating suppliers. Many schools also use online instructors, which is an optional service that is nonetheless offered by most vendors. However, many school districts, especially those in large metropolitan districts, often serve as suppliers to schools (Evergreen Education Group, 2017).

7.6.3 Edupreneurs Over two decades, education companies, or “edupreneurs,” have entered the education marketplace with innovative, cost-efficient products and services for students of all age groups (Lips, 2000). The author noted that the market share of for-profit education was small, around 10% of the $740 billion education market 20  years ago. The author also highlighted that K–12 education is the most challenging sector of the education industry for companies to enter. Competition and regulation from Government-funded education often make it difficult for independent companies to make a profit. Yet, edupreneurs actively address the demand to improve K–12 schooling by operating within and contending against the state-run schools with

138

7  Online Learning in K-12 Education

various products and services. Evergreen Education Group (2017) reported that independent online learning programs extended the offer to parents and students. They included companies like K12. Inc., Connections Academy, APEX Learning, and Edgenuity. Evergreen Education Group (2017) documented that in recent years, when annual funding and revenue are included, the total size of the education enterprise is the second largest industry on earth, closely following healthcare. In the United States, it is also second to healthcare. Based on 2014–2015 data, the U.S.’s annual estimate for education spending was 1.4 trillion dollars. Of which, K-12 schools use 670 billion dollars. In addition, a relatively substantial portion of the online and digital learning vendors falls in the digital content and textbook components, reaching 8.4 billion in revenue. Mollenkamp (2022) argued that the COVID-19 pandemic created a lasting impact on the American education system. She also reported that this “pandemic bump” increased private investments in educational technology. For instance, she cited Wan (n.d.) and highlighted that the U.S. education technology firms raised $8.2 billion of investment capital in 2021, the most significant venture capital the U.S. educational technology industry has ever seen, reaching about four times larger amount raised in 2020. Finally, she noted that it is too early to know how this increased investment will change the future of learning technologies in school, but private companies’ interest in educational technology will remain.

7.7 Issues Related to Online Learning Multiple challenges will likely impede the adoption of online learning in K-12 education. It appears that the digital divide, efficacy, and data privacy issues will remain unsettled. The following section provides further discussions on these topics.

7.7.1 Digital Divide Many U.S. schools consider online learning to supplement the traditional face-to-­ face approach to increase their capacity for customized student learning. However, the digital divide–limited access to learning technologies and broadband Internet connections in some parts of the country–remains a concern. See Chap. 5 for a more detailed discussion about the digital divide. Zalaznick (2020a) reported that the U.S ranks near the middle for online learning access among the 30 developed countries analyzed. Zalaznick (2020b) further noted that “access, affordability, and skills” are the three essential factors that leave some U.S. K-12 students unable to participate fully in digital learning. The COVID-19 pandemic confirmed that the digital divide “runs deep” (Schaffhauser, 2020d) and “obstacles remain” (Riddell, 2020), calling for legislators to act on providing equal

7.7  Issues Related to Online Learning

139

access to digital tools and the Internet. Data demonstrates that unless education stakeholders in the U.S. bridge the digital divide, it would be challenging for schools to create impactful online learning experiences regardless of whether such offers are received at the school or home.

7.7.2 Efficacy Current online learning practices in K-12 education include many applications, such as fully online instruction, blended learning, and supplemental courses. In addition, any one of these programs includes varying factors such as student demographics, location, and availability of technology. Therefore, it is challenging to evaluate the actual effectiveness of online learning offerings in primary and secondary schools (Lips, 2010; Means et  al., 2009). Given the limited research on the effectiveness of online learning at the K-12 level and concerns about academic decline (Arundel, 2020; Einhorn, 2020) and low student engagement (Schaffhauser, 2021) observed in remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, the issue related to the efficacy of online programs in K-12 education will remain discussed for the foreseeable feature.

7.7.3 Data Privacy As discussed in Chap. 6, safety and privacy have required the attention of K-12 educators for some time now. During the COVID-19 pandemic, data privacy issues become more complex. In other words, as Gross (2021) reported, the massive shift to remote learning during the pandemic allowed educators and parents to emphasize the data privacy issue that was always there. Gross further argued that implementing strong data privacy policies will become the norm, not the expectation for schools, school districts, and technology companies. For instance, New York state schools have officially banned facial recognition, and other states are expected to embrace similar restrictions (Lieberman, 2020b). Yet, the author highlighted that not all schools and technology companies had kept pace. Concerns about digital surveillance and increasing cybersecurity would be critical issues to discuss during the post-pandemic era. Multiple reports raised concerns about the increased level of digital surveillance monitoring students’ online learning activities (e.g., Keierleber, 2020a, b; Nagel, 2021). For instance, Harwell (2022) reported that nearly 90% of remote learning tools used during the COVID-19 pandemic shared student data with third-party companies such as Facebook and Google. As a result, lawmakers called on the Federal Communications Commission to clarify how schools should use digital surveillance and for the U.S.  Department of Education to collect data that can help determine if any particular student groups are disproportionately affected (Keierleber, 2022). In addition, Borgen (2021) reported

140

7  Online Learning in K-12 Education

that increasing cybersecurity and assessing the risks and vulnerabilities of students and parents as they participate in digital learning will be critical issues to discuss and observe in the coming years. The author further argued that schools would have high expectations during the post-pandemic years to implement the best practices for security and privacy. Aligned with this notion, the Federal Trade Commission published a policy statement announcing additional steps to determine learning technologies that target student data for commercial purposes, violating the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) (Keierleber, 2022).

7.8 Conclusion Online learning applications in U.S.  K-12 schools are still developing. However, they have increasingly become available in the last two decades, offering customized instruction for students. The discussion addressed in this chapter concerning online teaching and learning is expected to inform students, parents, and educators who consider expanding their choices and associated educational opportunities. In general, online learning programs serve students in three models: fully online programs, online courses supplemental to regular classroom instruction, and hybrid or blended schools (Evergreen Education Group, 2017). In addition, the literature concerning online offerings in primary and secondary education highlights significant potential benefits such as customization, optimization, and flexibility (Lips, 2010). Yet, accessibility, mobility, and credibility persist as the main discussion points. A growing number of students are accessing online learning nationwide. However, the current ratio of students in online schools is around 2% or less in all states (Digital Learning Collaborative, 2019). Online learning appears convenient for some students in the U.S.. It might be the only option for those in low-income and rural areas needing mobility to obtain a quality education (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Multiple factors seem to impact public opinion about the credibility of online learning, such as instructional effectiveness, social interaction considerations, and completion rates. Particularly, limited data on the efficacy of K-12 online learning programs (Lips, 2010) and a small number of rigorous published research in the literature (Means et al., 2009) seem to add to the credibility discussion. There is room for improvement concerning rigorous research investigating the impact of online learning in primary and secondary grades. As online learning initiatives continue, at this particular stage, K-12 schools seem to present a preference toward blended learning–a combination of online learning and in-person instruction. Even though programs implementing blended strategies are still in the early stages, increasing numbers of school districts in the U.S. offer blended-learning programs through a hybrid structure (Watson, 2008). The U.S. experienced a remote learning surge under the COVID-19 pandemic, which brought a renewed perspective to online learning in K-12 education. Even

References

141

though the massive, system wide shift to remote learning since the beginning of the Coronavirus pandemic created initial frustrations for educators (Education Week, 2020), schools quickly turned their attention to preparing for the new normal. Six months later than the pandemic started, about two-thirds of school systems in the U.S. were practicing hybrid learning (Lieberman, 2020a) and adapting as needed, recognizing that there was still work ahead (Dusseault et  al., 2020). Despite the challenges faced by school communities, current conversation among education leaders indicates possible directions for K-12 education as they reimagine the post-­ pandemic era. Starting with an unprecedented development of COVID-19, the digital transformation is expected to accelerate in the next 5  years (Gewertz, 2020), along with significant growth in remote learning (Burt, 2020). Given the historical context and recent developments, current trends and issues related to online learning in K-12 schools in the U.S. bring multiple critical discussion topics to educators’ attention as they present policy and practice implications. Notably, education stakeholders seem to closely watch hybrid schools’ developments in the K–12 digital spheres. Some anticipate that this blended approach will likely come to be the prevailing instructional model of the future (Watson, 2008). Yet, multiple challenges need to be addressed to adopt further online learning in K-12 education, such as the digital divide, the effectiveness of the offered programs, and data privacy issues.

References Ahn, J., & McEachin, A. (2017). Student enrollment patterns and achievement in Ohio’s online charter schools. Educational Researcher, 46(1), 44–57. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ pdf/10.3102/0013189X17692999. Accessed 19 March 2022. Allen, I.E., Seaman, J., & Garrett R. (2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. https://www.bayviewanalytics.com/reports/blending-­in.pdf. Accessed 22 March 2022. Arundel, K. (2020). Survey: Students praise teachers’ efforts, have concerns about academic declines. https://www.k12dive.com/news/students-­praise-­teachers-­efforts-­but-­have-­academic-­ concerns/592316. Accessed 30 April 2022. Barnum, M. (2020). With most U.S. students still learning online, parents say they want better virtual instruction. https://www.chalkbeat.org/2020/10/8/21508138/parents-­schools-­covid-­ online-­poll. Accessed 11 November 2020. Belsha, K. (2020). Teaching in-person and virtual students at once? It’s an instructional nightmare, some educators say. https://www.chalkbeat.org/2020/10/1/21497795/teaching-­in-­person-­ and-­virtual-­students-­at-­once-­is-­an-­instructional-­nightmare-­some-­educators-­say. Accessed 6 November 2020. Borgen, J. (2021). 6 communication and technology trends worth keeping. https://corp.smartbrief.com/original/2021/07/6-­communication-­and-­technology-­trends-­worth-­keeping?utm_ source=brief. Accessed 30 April 2022. Burstein, R. (2020). Districts were trending toward reopening. That all changed one week in November. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-­12-­14-­districts-­were-­trending-­toward-­ reopening-­that-­all-­changed-­one-­week-­in-­november. Accessed 26 March 2022.

142

7  Online Learning in K-12 Education

Burt, C. (2020). Report: Only 20% of educators said schools were ready for remote. https:// districtadministration.com/report-­20-­of-­educators-­say-­they-­were-­fully-­ready-­for-­virtual. Accessed 29 October 2020. California Virtual Academies. (n.d.). Potential advantages and challenges of online schooling. https://cava.k12.com/general-­faqs/potential-­advantages-­and-­challenges-­of-­online-­schooling. html. Accessed 5 November 2020. Connections Academy. (n.d.). Growth of K-12 online education infographic. https://elearninginfographics.com/growth-­k12-­digital-­learning-­infographic. Accessed 21 October 2020. Continuous Learning Rubric v2.1. (n.d.). https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lXAwsLWBfN slkhIGxHqgojVjmV5n8KIrR7SCmZnNqsA/edit#gid=1000901060. Accessed 23 March 2022. Digital Learning Collaborative. (2019). Snapshot 2019: A review of K–12 online, blended, and digital learning. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59381b9a17bffc68bf625df4/t/5ca e3c05652dea4d690f5315/1554922508490/DLC-­KP-­Snapshot2019_040819.pdf. Accessed 12 March 2022. Dusseault, B., Pillow, T., & Lake, R. (2020). Reopening checkup: Filling the leadership vacuum will help schools focus on engaging students, addressing learning loss. https://www.crpe. org/thelens/reopening-­checkup-­filling-­leadership-­vacuum-­will-­help-­schools-­focus-­engaging-­ students. Accessed 19 November 2020. Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., & Moskal, P. (2004). Blended learning. https://www.educause.edu/~/ media/files/library/2004/3/erb0407-­pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed 1 December 2020. Education Week. (2020). Technology counts 2020: Coronavirus, virtual learning, and beyond. https://www.edweek.org/ew/collections/technology-­counts-­2020/index.html?cmp=eml-­eb-­ summread2-­07072020&M=59598405&U=&UUID=15d128416201437fa01f49e3dc3058e5. Accessed 10 November 2020. Einhorn, E. (2020). Covid is having a devastating impact on children—and the vaccine won’t fix everything. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/covid-­having-­devastating-­impact-­ children-­vaccine-­won-­t-­fix-­everything-­n1251172. Accessed 1 May 2022. Evergreen Education Group. (2017). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning 2016. https://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED576762.pdf. Accessed 28 October 2020. Florida TaxWatch Center for Educational Performance and Accountability. (2007). Final report: A comprehensive assessment of Florida Virtual School. https://www.flvs.net/docs/default-­source/ research/TaxWatch-­Study.pdf. Accessed 30 November 2020. Gewertz, C. (2020). How technology, coronavirus will change teaching by 2025. https://www. edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/06/03/how-­technology-­coronavirus-­will-­change-­teaching-­by. html. Accessed 11 November 2020. Gross, N. (2021). 5 ed tech trends to watch in 2021. https://www.k12dive.com/news/5-­ed-­tech-­ trends-­to-­watch-­in-­2021/592717. Accessed 30 April 2022. Hart, C.M.D., Berger, D., Jacob, B. Loeb, S., & Hill, M. (2019). Online learning, offline outcomes: Online course taking and high school student performance. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ full/10.1177/2332858419832852. Accessed 19 March 2022. Harwell, D. (2022). Remote learning apps shared children’s data at a “dizzying scale.” The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/24/remote-­school-­ app-­tracking-­privacy/?wpisrc=nl_sb_smartbrief. Accessed 7 June 2022. Heppen, J.  B., Sorensen, N., Allensworth, E., Walters, K., Rickles, J., Stachel Taylor, S., & Michelman, V. (2017). The struggle to pass algebra: Online vs. face-to-face credit recovery for at-risk urban students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(2), 272–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1168500 Keierleber, M. (2020a). Parents and educators hope the rise of online learning lives on after the pandemic, report finds. But researchers say privacy protections shouldn’t be sacrificed. https:// www.the74million.org/parents-­and-­educators-­hope-­the-­rise-­of-­online-­learning-­lives-­on-­after-­ the-­pandemic-­report-­finds-­but-­researchers-­say-­privacy-­protections-­shouldnt-­be-­sacrificed. Accessed 18 November 2020.

References

143

Keierleber, M. (2020b). Minneapolis school district addresses parent outrage over new digital surveillance tool as students learn remotely. https://www.the74million.org/minneapolis-­ school-­district-­addresses-­parent-­outrage-­over-­new-­digital-­surveillance-­tool-­as-­students-­learn-­ remotely. Accessed 30 April 2022. Keierleber, M. (2022). FTC announces plan to target ed tech tools that “illegally surveil children.” The74. https://www.the74million.org/article/ftc-­announces-­plan-­to-­target-­ed-­tech-­tools-­that-­ illegally-­surveil-­children. Accessed 7 June 2022. Lardieri, A. (2020). Most parents worry students will fall behind due to the pandemic. https://www. usnews.com/news/education-­news/articles/2020-­10-­29/most-­parents-­worry-­students-­will-­fall- ­ behind-­due-­to-­coronavirus-­survey-­finds. Accessed 11 November 2020. Lieberman, M. (2020a). How hybrid learning is (and is not) working during COVID-19: 6 case studies. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/11/11/how-­hybrid-­learning-­is-­and-­is-­not. html. Accessed 12 November 2020. Lieberman, M. (2020b). New York banned facial recognition in schools. Will other states follow? https://www.edweek.org/technology/new-­york-­banned-­facial-­recognition-­in-­schools-­will-­ other-­states-­follow/2020/12. Accessed 1 May 2022. Lips, C. (2000). “Edupreneurs”: A survey of for-profit education. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato. org/files/pubs/pdf/pa386.pdf. Accessed 20 October 2020. Lips, D. (2010). How online learning is revolutionizing K-12 education and benefiting students. https://www.heritage.org/technology/report/how-­o nline-­l earning-­r evolutionizing-­k -­1 2-­ education-­and-­benefiting-­students. Accessed 9 October 2020. Loeb, S. (2020). How effective is online learning? What the research does and doesn’t tell us. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/03/23/how-­effective-­is-­online-­ learning-­what-­the.html?s_kwcid=AL!6416!3!266402628866!b!!g!!&cmp=cpc-­goog-­ew-­dyn amic+ads+recent+articles&ccid=dynamic+ads+recent+articles&ccag=recent+articles+dyna mic&cckw=&cccv=dynamic+ad&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-­p3hvvWV7AIVqeiGCh3pawsVEA AYBCAAEgKi2_D_BwE. Accessed 5 November 2020. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practice in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. https://files. eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505824.pdf. Accessed 19 October 2020. Mollenkamp, D. (2022). What’s next for edtech now that the ‘pandemic bump’ has faded? EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2022-­05-­23-­what-­s-­next-­for-­edtech-­now-­that-­the-­pandemic-­ bump-­has-­faded. Accessed 5 June 2022. Nagel, D. (2021). Student device monitoring a threat to LGBTQI+ students, student expression– Report. https://thejournal.com/articles/2021/09/21/student-­device-­monitoring-­a-­threat-­to-­ lgbtqi-­students-­student-­expression-­report.aspx. Accessed 1 May 2022. Newcomb, T. (2020). Schools tell ed tech leader they expect lots more blended, hybrid learning in the fall. What this means for teachers and students. https://www.the74million.org/article/ schools-­tell-­ed-­tech-­leader-­they-­expect-­lots-­more-­blended-­hybrid-­learning-­in-­the-­fall-­what-­ this-­means-­for-­teachers-­and-­students. Accessed 6 November 2020. Piccianno, A. G., & Seaman, F. (2009). K-12 online learning: A 2008 follow-up of the survey of U.S. school district administrators. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530104.pdf. Accessed 19 October 2020. Riddell, R. (2020). Survey: Students relatively positive on distance learning, but obstacles remain. https://www.k12dive.com/news/survey-­students-­relatively-­positive-­on-­distance-­learning-­but-­ obstacles-­re/581100. Accessed 28 April 2022. Schaffhauser, D. (2020a). Johns Hopkins launches K-12 school reopening policy tracker. https:// thejournal.com/articles/2020/07/15/johns-­hopkins-­launches-­k-­12-­school-­reopening-­policy-­ tracker.aspx. Accessed 10 November 2020. Schaffhauser, D. (2020b). Rubric helps districts identify areas of improvement for fall return. https:// thejournal.com/articles/2020/08/31/rubric-­helps-­districts-­identify-­areas-­of-­improvement-­for-­ fall-­return.aspx. Accessed 10 November 2020.

144

7  Online Learning in K-12 Education

Schaffhauser, D. (2020c). Rise of ebooks reflects rise of remote ed. https://thejournal.com/articles/2020/11/12/rise-­of-­ebooks-­reflects-­rise-­of-­remote-­ed.aspx. Accessed 14 November 2020. Schaffhauser, D. (2020d). Remote learning will continue growing over the next three years. https:// thejournal.com/articles/2020/10/29/remote-­learning-­will-­continue-­growing-­over-­the-­next-­ three-­years.aspx. Accessed 28 April 2022. Schaffhauser, D. (2021). Remote learning kills student engagement. https://thejournal.com/articles/2021/08/18/remote-­learning-­kills-­student-­engagement.aspx. Accessed 1 May 2022. Schwartz, S. (2020). Survey: Teachers and students are struggling with online learning. http:// blogs.edweek.org/teachers/teaching_now/2020/11/survey_teachers_and_students_are_struggling_with_online_learning.html. Accessed 19 November 2020. Schwartz, H. L., Grant, D., Diliberti, M. K., Hunter, G. P., & Setodji, C. M. (2020). Remote learning is here to stay: Results from the first American school district panel survey. https://www. rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA956-­1.html. Accessed 26 March 2022. Torchia, R. (2021). Is virtual learning here to stay for K–12? https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/ article/2021/04/virtual-­learning-­here-­stay-­k-­12-­perfcon. Accessed 20 March 2022. U.S.  Department of Education. (2011). More than 40% of low-income schools don’t get a fair share of state and local funds, Department of Education research finds. https://www.eseanetwork.org/news-­and-­resources/blogs/used/us-­ed-­press-­release-­40-­of-­schools-­dont-­get-­fair-­ share. Accessed 5 June 2022. University of Michigan-Dearborn. (n.d.). EDT 501–research, trends, and issues in educational technology. Graduate catalog. http://catalog.umd.umich.edu/graduate/coursesaz/edt. Accessed 19 August 2022. Wan, T. (n.d.). US edtech’s roaring twenties begins with $8.2 billion invested in 2021. Reach Capital. https://medium.com/reach-­capital/us-­edtechs-­roaring-­twenties-­begins-­with-­8-­2-­ billion-­invested-­in-­2021-­99f01a662280. Accessed 5 June 2022. Watson, J. F. (2005). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: A review of state-level policy and practice. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED489514.pdf. Accessed 20 October 2020. Watson, J. (2008). Blending learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509636.pdf. Accessed 6 November 2020. Young, J. R. (2020). Sudden shift to online learning revealed gaps in digital literacy, study finds. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-­10-­01-­sudden-­shift-­to-­online-­learning-­revealed-­gaps-­in-­ digital-­literacy-­study-­finds. Accessed 10 November 2020. Zalaznick, M. (2020a). Why the U.S. ranks 12th for online learning access. https://districtadministration.com/usa-­ranks-­12th-­online-­remote-­e-­learning-­student-­internet-­access. Accessed 28 April 2022. Zalaznick, M. (2020b). 3 factors widen the digital divide in schools. https://districtadministration. com/digital-­divide-­in-­schools-­access-­affordability-­skills-­devices-­online-­learning. Accessed 28 April 2022.

Chapter 8

Digital Citizenship

“A new type of passport.”

8.1 Introduction Digital citizenship can simply be described as using technology appropriately. Ribble (2017) expanded the definition and highlighted that “digital citizenship is the continuously developing norms of appropriate, responsible, and empowered technology use.” The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards for Students (2016) further elaborated on the definition. They explained that students who are digital citizens “recognize the rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of living, learning and working in an interconnected digital world, and they act and model in ways that are safe, legal and ethical.” Finally, Weinstein and James (2022) summarized the definition as “responsible use of technology to learn, create and participate.” Bringing a practical perspective to the discussion, and highlighting the ever-­ changing nature of technology innovations, Ohler (2011) posed the question that guides the discussion in this present chapter: “Should we teach our kids to have two lives, or one?” Ohler argued that we face a fundamental question about how to teach our children to have a conscious and reflective presence in this digital age’s rapidly changing sphere. The author described the “two lives” perspective, which assumes a dissonance between one traditional life at school, typically disconnected from the digital, and another digitally pervasive life in the home and outside the school. Ohler pointed out that, on the other hand, the “one life” perspective requires and encourages educators to assist students in managing a single, integrated life, wherein they balance the “individual empowerment of digital technology use with a sense of personal, community, and global responsibility.” The present chapter addresses an overarching concept in learning technologies– digital citizenship. The chapter first describes the characteristics of citizenship in the digital age and then highlights the “nine themes” of digital citizenship. Next, the writing focuses on teaching citizenship in schools. After that, the chapter discusses current trends and issues concerning digital citizenship. Finally, the chapter

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Duran, Learning Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18111-5_8

145

146

8  Digital Citizenship

summarizes the critical issues addressed and highlights the implications for policy and practices. The discussion provided in this chapter applied three primary resources. First, the author conducted an extensive literature review on the chapter’s central focus— digital citizenship–through multiple databases, journals, and web resources. Second, the writer’s reflections on over 20 years of professional teaching and research experiences at a comprehensive research university in the U.S. confirm the discussion presented in the chapter. Significant published scholarship regarding technology integration in teacher preparation programs and trends and issues pertinent to educational technology further augments this expert perspective. And third, the observations and viewpoints of participants in a graduate-level online course called Research, Trends, and Issues in Educational Technology enrich the chapter’s discussion. The course acquaints the students with research, trends, and issues facing education in the digital era, addressing a wide range of technological developments and investigating key topics concerning technology in the contemporary classroom (University of Michigan-Dearborn, n.d.). The author regularly teaches and collects data from this course. The vital viewpoint of practicing teachers who take the course offers the perspective from the field as they experience the critical developments in digital citizenship in their schools and their practice within them.

8.2 Purpose of the Chapter Many aspects of a good citizen, such as being kind, respectful, and responsible, are critical elements of digital citizenship (Fingal, 2021). However, students need to learn how to apply these qualities in cyberspace to conduct themselves safely and responsibly in the virtual world (Frost, 2022). Therefore, this chapter examines the citizenship application in the digital age. In this way, students, parents, and educators will learn about the characteristics of a good citizen and how they parallel or differ from those of a good digital citizen. The literature highlights multiple elements of digital citizenship. Thus, the chapter aims to describe the identified themes. This way, the writer seeks to assist the readers in existing discussions concerning the hallmarks of being an effective digital citizen. Teaching citizenship in schools will require understanding the guiding principles and best practices. Thus, the chapter will provide helpful information about how educators should model and promote digital citizenship in schools. Finally, the chapter emphasizes current trends and issues in digital citizenship and discusses their implications for policy and practices. This way, education stakeholders should better understand the potential and challenges of addressing digital citizenship in K-12 education.

8.3  Citizenship in the Digital Age

147

8.3 Citizenship in the Digital Age Fingal (2021) highlighted that with their varying digital tools and access to many educational apps, today’s students are equipped with enormous possibilities to engage in an interconnected world where they live, learn, and work. However, the author pointed out that as young citizens take advantage of the opportunities technology applications offer them, they should apply the elements of digital citizenship to safely and responsibly navigate the “intersection of technology and humanity.” Expressing a similar understanding, as part of the class discussion about digital citizenship during the fall 2021 semester, one of the students in the Research, Trends, & Issues in Educational Technology course posted the following reflections: In less than a millisecond, a google search result can pull millions of results written by people from all around the globe. These bits of information encompass all of mankind’s collective knowledge. Just because this information is out there does not mean that everyone has the skills to wield it. In order to be best prepared for this type of environment, a new type of “passport” is required–the passport of a digital citizen.

Among other critical points that the above reflection highlights, describing digital citizenship as a “new type of passport” represents the feeling of many other practitioners. The literature emphasizes a common understanding that, in general, the essential components of digital citizenship don’t differ much from the basic principles of traditional citizenship, such as being respectful and responsible (Brichacek, 2014; Fingal, 2021; Ohler, 2011). Yet others point out that digital citizenship should not be a list of dos and don’ts. Instead, it should elevate thoughtful and empathetic citizens who can understand and act appropriately in online communities (ISTE, n.d.) and celebrate the positive use of digital technologies (EPIK Deliberate Digit et  al., 2017). Further, the authors noted that just as good citizenship in the physical world is more than following rules, good digital citizenship involves “being informed, involved, and engaged” to improve their societies. Fingal (2021) added to the above discussion and highlighted the five digital citizen competencies: “inclusive, informed, engaged, balanced, and alert.” The author explained these components in the following ways. Digital citizenship requires being inclusive and engaging with the online community with respect and empathy. A digital citizen is also an informed person who can evaluate the accuracy and validity of online information and see the perspective provided. Another characteristic of digital citizenship is using technology tools for civic engagement to promote the public good. Digital citizens can also balance and prioritize their time and activities online and offline. Finally, digital citizens are alert, know how to be safe online, and create safe places for others. Underlining the similarities and differences between a good citizen and a good digital citizen in an infographic, Brichacek (2014, p.3) presented the following practical examples in comparison (Table 8.1): Expanding on the earlier work discussed above, ISTE Standards for Students emphasized the following four digital citizenship standards for students (ISTE, 2016):

148

8  Digital Citizenship

Table 8.1  Citizenship in the digital age (adopted from Brichacek, 2014) A Good Citizen Advocate for equal human rights for all Treats others courteously and never bullies Does not steal or damage others’ property or persons Communities clearly, respectfully and with empathy Actively pursues an education and develops habits for lifelong learning Spends and manages money responsibly Upholds basics human rights of privacy, freedom of speech, etc. Protects self and others from harm

A Good Digital Citizen Advocates for equal digital rights and access for all Treats others with respect in online space and never cyberbullies Does not steal or damage others’ digital work, identity or property Makes appropriate decisions when communicating through a variety of digital channels Uses digital tools to advocate advance their learning and keeps up with changing technologies Makes responsible online purchasing decisions and protects their payment information Upholds basic human rights in all digital forums Protects personal information from outside forces that might cause harm

• Students cultivate and manage their digital identity and reputation and are aware of the permanence of their actions in the digital world. • Students engage in positive, safe, legal, and ethical behavior when using technology, including social interactions online or when using networked devices. • Students demonstrate an understanding of and respect for the rights and obligations of using and sharing intellectual property. • Students manage their personal data to maintain digital privacy and security and are aware of data-collection technology used to track their navigation online. ISTE (2016) explained the above standards following way. As the first standard pointed out, digital citizens are expected to manage their online identity and reputation by monitoring how they represent themselves in public domains based on their activities, such as connections they create, social media posts they make, and photos they post. Digital citizens of this nature are expected to understand that digital content has a long lifespan, even when the original poster might delete the content, and that privacy settings are capable of protecting users from some degree of scrutiny. The second standard sets the stage for positive, safe, legal, and ethical behaviors expected from digital citizens when using technology and online applications. When students use online or networked devices, they are expected to present “health interactions” with the technology itself by monitoring their time online and balancing their media use with daily physical activities. Students should also participate in online interactions that do not harm themselves or others, such as knowing the identity of whom they engage, not releasing any sensitive information, and protecting themselves from frauds, phishing tricks, and flawed purchasing approaches. Interactions related to the legal behaviors include being mindful of the laws such as copyright and fair use, following network protections, and not impersonating another person or using their identity. Ethical behavior interactions focus on “moral codes” like refraining from cyberbullying, trolling, scamming others, and

8.4  Nine Themes of Digital Citizenship

149

plagiarizing work, and in turn supporting the maintenance of peers’ positive digital experiences. The third standard focuses on using and sharing intellectual property. Digital citizens should understand the rights and responsibilities of using and sharing online resources and follow the rules and regulations set for copyright and fair use, citing resources, gaining or giving permission to use online content, and using creative commons. Intellectual property is another concern where students need to be respectful about the content or ideas created by others, such as music, photos, narrations, text, and design. The fourth and last standard requires digital citizens to carefully manage their data, like creating strong passwords, checking online sources before providing personal information, and not visibly posting addresses or phone numbers. Digital privacy and security issues are also covered under the fourth standard, where students are expected to activate the privacy settings on the websites and search engines that they visit, be aware of which sites use encryption, and be cautious about accepting privacy policies and access requests on apps and websites. Digital citizens also need to be aware of data-collection technologies for tracking their navigation and personal data, website cookies, website analytics, and how data is exchanged between their networked devices.

8.4 Nine Themes of Digital Citizenship EPIK Deliberate Digital (2017) described that earlier discussions about digital citizenship focused on online safety for children. The authors noted that as the internet continued to develop and expand, additional issues such as netiquette, copyright, privacy, and more became present. In addition, pioneers of the discussion, such as Dr. Mike Ribble, have urged people to expand their perspective on digital citizenship (see Ribble, 2011, 2017; Ribble et al., 2004 and Ribble & Bailey, 2007). The “Nine Elements of Digital Citizenship” was introduced to the reader in these publications, shaping the primary conversation about digital citizenship and guiding educational applications in schools. Ribble (2017) described the nine elements of digital citizenship: “digital access, digital commerce, digital communication and collaboration, digital etiquette, digital fluency, digital health and welfare, digital law, digital rights and responsibility, and digital security and privacy.” Ribble (2011) argued that educators and technology leaders could use these nine elements to address digital citizenship issues even though it is a flexible framework. The following section briefly describes each of the components.

150

8  Digital Citizenship

8.4.1 Digital Access Ribble (2011) defined digital access as “full electronic participation in society” (p.16). In this earlier writing, the author framed the discussion around two critical questions for educators: Does everyone in your school have equal opportunities as far as technology use is concerned? Do all students have the opportunity to be involved in a digital society?

The author argued that technology allows individuals to access communication and collaboration tools. However, he pointed out that these opportunities are not readily available for disadvantaged groups such as students in low socio-economic groups, special needs students, and students in remote areas. In his later discussions, the author argued that “digital access is about the equitable distribution of technology and online resources” (Ribble, 2017). Ribble urged schools and school districts to be aware of the digital disparity in their communities and work on providing accommodations. Otherwise, others argued that such a digital divide would be a barrier to the development of digital citizens (Walters et al., 2019).

8.4.2 Digital Commerce Ribble (2011) defined digital commerce as “the electronic buying and selling of goods” (p. 20). The following are the two essential questions that the author raised in this discussion: Are students aware of the opportunities as well as the problems associated with purchasing items using digital technology? Should students be made more aware of how to purchase goods and services through digital formats?

The author argued that digital citizenship is one of the most challenging components to address in schools. However, as digital space becomes more attractive for buying, selling, and banking, students become vulnerable to internet scams and identity theft (Ribble, 2017). Reflecting on the existing discussions, Curaan and Ribble (2017) recommended that students be educated about their digital economy practices because their actions of this nature might have long-term consequences such as credit card debt or low credit scores.

8.4.3 Digital Communication and Collaboration Ribble (2011) described digital communication and collaboration as “the electronic exchange of information” (p.  23). The author listed the following two essential questions to address the topic:

8.4  Nine Themes of Digital Citizenship

151

Do I use email, cell phone, texting, and social networking technologies appropriately when communicating with others? What rules, options, and etiquette do students need to be aware of when using digital communication technologies?

Ribble (2011) explained that human communication has a new social construct with the increased use of cell phones, texting, and social media. The author argued that this new format challenged educators to address how the latest digital communication and collaboration technologies should be used in the schools, considering possible positive and negative outcomes. He also recognized that, for some students, these new technologies provide opportunities to express themselves differently (Ribble, 2017). The author concluded that digital citizenship offers the framework for decision-makers at schools and districts to understand and address the issue appropriately.

8.4.4 Digital Etiquette Ribble (2011) defined digital etiquette as “the electronic standards of conduct or procedure” (p.29). According to the author, the following are essential questions in this discussion: Are students aware of others when they use technology? Do students realize how their use of technology affects others?

Ribble (2017) further argued that digital etiquette generally considers thinking about and being aware of others when using digital tools. Walters et al. (2019) noted that “netiquette” is another concept used to describe digital ethics–a set of rules for proper online behaviors (see Chap. 6, Sect. 6.4.1 for more discussion about Netiquette.) The literature emphasized educating students about digital ethics through establishing classroom norms, education goals, and modeling (Curran & Ribble, 2017; Ribble, 2017).

8.4.5 Digital Fluency Ribble (2017) defined digital fluency as “the process of understanding technology and its use.” The author argued that students fluent in the digital sphere would likely conduct themselves well when they need to make decisions for their online presence and support others similarly. In addition, Ribble pointed out that educated students in digital literacy and fluency would be able to differentiate helpful and valuable information available online and discern from “fake news.”

152

8  Digital Citizenship

8.4.6 Digital Health and Welfare Ribble (2011) defined digital health and welfare as “physical and psychological well-being in a digital technology world” (p.38). He added the following essential question to further the conversation: How can students be physically affected by technology? Are students aware of the physical dangers that can accompany the use of digital technology? How else can someone become injured using technology?

Ribble (2011) pointed out multiple physical matters that the users need to be aware such as carpal tunnel syndrome, eyestrain, and poor posture. In addition, the author noted other aspects of digital safety, like the topic of “internet addiction.” In his later writing, Ribble (2017) recognized many affordances of technology when used balanced and healthy. However, the author also noted that educators and students must be careful about appropriate screen time. Furthering the discussion, Curran and Ribble (2017) recommended attention to excessive use of online sites and platforms for entertainment and interaction between peers. They urged educators to model and work with students to develop healthy relationships between their two worlds–in-­ person and digital.

8.4.7 Digital Law Ribble (2011) defined digital law as “the electronic responsibility for actions and deeds” (p. 31). The author further elaborated that digital law references the development of rules and regulations to address issues of the digital space (Ribble, 2017). Finally, the author highlighted three essential questions concerning digital law (2011, p. 32): Are students using technology the way it was intended? Are students infringing on others’ rights by the way they use technology? Should students using digital technologies be accountable for how they use digital technologies?

Ribble (2017) pointed out that as it is present in the real world, the digital world needs to create a legal system for digital devices and services, such as governing issues like cyberbullying, sharing elicit pictures, and hacking. Curran and Ribble (2017) also emphasized that digital laws protect individuals’ rights and place retributions. Equally important, schools need to establish strategies to educate students about the legal issues in the online world (Ribble, 2017). See Chap. 6, Sect. 6.3 more detailed discussion about legal issues in educational technology.

8.4  Nine Themes of Digital Citizenship

153

8.4.8 Digital Rights and Responsibility Ribble (2011) refers to digital rights and responsibility as “those requirements and freedoms extended to everyone in a digital world” (p.35). The author raised two essential questions to frame the discussion on this topic: What rights and responsibilities do students have in a digital society? How do we make students more aware of their rights and responsibilities when using digital technologies?

Further explaining his arguments, Ribble (2017) pointed out that this particular area of digital citizenship is about assisting students in comprehending the digital world’s opportunities (rights) and being diligent in informing others about potential problems (responsibility). The author further suggested that teachers should educate students on the same topic, addressing that rights and duties exist both online in the real world and online. In addition, Curran and Ribble (2017) noted that as students learn such skills, parents must act as partners with educators by mentoring and providing good examples to their children.

8.4.9 Digital Security and Privacy Ribble (2011) described digital security and privacy as “the electronic precautions to guarantee safety” (p.  40). He argued for a robust strategy to protect sensitive information stored and shared online. He said students must learn how to protect their sensitive data. Ribble entertained the following: How do students protect their technology in a digital society? How can students be taught to protect themselves and their equipment from harm?

Pointing to viruses, worms, and other attacks, Ribble (2017) cautioned educators and parents to help students gain essential skills to understand and be cognizant about safeguarding their sensitive information online. See Chap. 6, Sect. 6.3.3 for further discussion about safety and privacy. In sum, as Walters et al. (2019) argued, the nine elements of digital citizenship described above provide a critical framework for students, parents, and educators to understand effective, ethical, and responsible uses of learning technologies. Further, Ribble (2011) urged readers to consider these nine standards interconnected rather than stand-alone issues. In this direction, the author recommended that these nine elements can be grouped into three main categories considering their effect on (a) student learning and educational implications, (b) overall school climate and student behavior, and (c) student life outside the school setting. Finally, the author concluded that this way could immediately impact anticipated digital technology use when digital citizenship is considered. The following section provides further discussion about teaching digital citizenship in schools.

154

8  Digital Citizenship

8.5 Teaching Citizenship in Schools Literature provides theoretical discussions and practical applications concerning teaching digital citizenship in schools. For example, Ohler (2011) recommended developing “character education” programs geared toward digital youth. The author argued that these programs would promote digital activities within the community context. Ohler pointed out that schools have already begun addressing digital character education through acceptable use policies (AUP) that prescribe students’ digital engagement standards. However, the author emphasized that even though AUP is a step in the right direction, schools should still work to design formal digital citizenship programs that “deeply, directly, and comprehensively” address character education in the digital age. Ribble (2017) provided another conceptual discussion. He recommended applying three guiding principles “(Safe, Savvy, and Social”) in every nine essential elements of digital citizenship and introducing them to students as early as they can start interacting with digital tools. First, the author described that Safety highlights protecting yourself and others and forms the base of digital citizenship. Next, Savvy promotes educating yourself and connecting with others. Finally, the Social guiding principle involves everyone in the decision-making process, presenting a commitment to respect ourselves and others. Ribble argued that Social is where we realize the full potential of the digital experience. Aligned with this discussion, Ribble introduced a digital citizen progression chart for K-12 grades available at https:// www.digitalcitizenship.net/dc-­progression-­chart.html. The chart also includes “touchpoints/cross-over with main concepts,” “cross-curricular connections,” and “student digital citizenship actions and demonstration of learning” sections. Conveying a practical perspective on the issue, Crompton (2014) pointed out that students would capture the essence of good digital citizenship when parents and teachers model them regularly. The author specifically emphasized the importance of directly teaching students about and promoting digital citizenship. In this direction, Crompton described social studies activities designed for upper elementary students (see Table 8.2). The author explained that the lesson is designed to help students study other cultures and share their own culture’s traditions and customs. Crompton noted that there are a number of ways to address these goals. However, teachers can present, promote, and model digital citizenship in the following ways: Crompton (2014) argued that the above activity includes multiple good digital citizenship practices. First, by utilizing proper citation practices for the images included in the lesson, the teacher demonstrates an ethical use of digital information, modeling proper respect for copyright laws, and appropriate documentation of sources as intellectual property. Second, by using safe communication tools like Skype and ePals, the teachers promote and model responsible social engagement concerning information and communication tools and give students the chance to practice digital etiquette in a safe and educational setting. Finally, the teacher allows students to choose their preferred digital tools to present their cultural traditions. This way, teachers provide a good example of how to address the diverse needs of

8.6  Current Trends in Digital Citizenship

155

Table 8.2  Activities to model digital citizenship (adopted from Crompton, 2014) Learning activity The teacher starts the lesson by showing the students a presentation about England that includes proper citations for sources and images. After meeting with a class from England on Skype, the teacher asks the students to use the safe email program ePals to connect with British students.

The teacher then asks the students to create a digital presentation to share cultural traditions, events, customs, and rituals, which they develop during class time to ensure equitable access to all.

Digital citizenship addressed The teacher modeled good digital citizenship by properly citing the sources and photographs he used in the presentation. The teacher models digital etiquette by using Skype with the class. Students will also get to practice responsible digital etiquette while using a safe email program. Students connect with students from another country by using multiple digital-age communication tools. The students are able to choose a tool to create their presentations. These tools are used during class time to ensure equitable access to all.

all learners and how to utilize digital tools and resources to provide equitable access to students. Aligned with the above discussions concerning direct teaching to foster digital citizenship, a recent study with high school students highlighted that a targeted lesson helped participants identify misinformation online (Merod, 2022). The author further reported that a 50-min video lesson used in the study helped students identify questionable websites twice as likely, significantly increasing their media literacy.

8.6 Current Trends in Digital Citizenship Given the historical context and recent developments, the following current trends in digital citizenship will continue to capture educators’ attention: “stakeholder engagement” and “the power of prevention.”

8.6.1 Stakeholder Engagement There are multiple educational and nonprofit organizations in the U.S. committed to raising public awareness about digital citizenship. The list includes but is not limited to the International Society for Technology in Education (iste.org), Common Sense Media (commonsense.org), DigCitCommit Coalition (digcitcommit.org), EPIK Deliberate Digital (epik.org), and the Digital Citizenship Institute (digcitinstitute.com). One common theme among the messages these institutions share is that teaching about digital citizenship requires the engagement of all education

156

8  Digital Citizenship

stakeholders. For instance, in a recent interview with Song (2020), reflecting on effective digital learning practices in his state Virginia, Superintendent James Lane put it best as he represented the feeling of many other education leaders: One thing we hope to see as an outcome of COVID-19 is a reinvigoration among leaders to reflect on how they can best facilitate effective digital learning. When it comes to digital citizenship specifically, leaders should first focus on building a shared vision alongside educators, teacher preparation programs, businesses, and policymakers. What does digital citizenship mean to those groups, and how can classrooms lay the foundation for students? That kind of stakeholder engagement will provide a pathway to partnering with the cross-­ section of organizations who can help build capacity.

As the above reflections indicate, students, parents, educators, educational institutions, non-profit organizations, businesses, government entities, and others need to collaborate to help create a positive digital culture. In other words, teaching about digital citizenship is everyone’s job. This trend would likely persist as the work on digital citizenship continues.

8.6.2 Positive Digital Citizenship Another trend to watch is the positive digital citizenship movement. As EPIK Deliberate Digital et al. (2017) argued, the positive digital citizenship movement is gaining momentum even though many educators and parents are still concerned about safety and security issues. The authors further elaborated that the idea is to balance the “safely-only” focus by leveraging the positives of digital living. UseTech4Good hashtag (usetech4good.com) is a prime example in this direction. The platform presents a collection of positive examples of youth’s engagement with technology and promotes “replacing fear with positive, deliberate, constructive ways youth and adults can work together with technology.”

8.7 Issues Related to Digital Citizenship Multiple challenges will likely impede the efforts for digital citizenship. It appears that the “one life or two lives” and research gap issues will remain unsettled for the time being. The following section provides further discussions on these topics.

8.7.1 “One Life” or “Two Lives” As Ohler (2011) wrote, the question of “should we teach our children as though they have two lives or one?” is a critical issue that remains current in the ever-changing digital sphere. The author argued that technological innovations enter our lives at

8.8 Conclusion

157

such a rapid pace that we rarely have enough time to think about the unintended consequences of the technologies. As a result, he highlighted that the challenge persists in raising a digitally conscious and reflective generation. Ohler further argued that limited funding for learning technologies also challenges schools to match what students use outside of the school, adding to the disparities between school and outside. In addition, Weinstein and James (2022) pointed out that some type of generational gap seems to exist between “single-minded” adults and youth adds to the complexities of having “one life.” The authors argued that many adults fall short when they perceive youth’s use of technology as an “addiction” as they try to navigate the network world. The arguments in the literature seem to describe that the issue of supporting a new generation of students both at school and at home would need further development to promote the “one life” concept.

8.7.2 Research Gap Another unsettled issue concerning digital citizenship is the current research gap in the literature. For instance, Walters et al. (2019) pointed out that few studies have investigated digital citizenship through Ribble‘s nine elements framework. The authors noted that a handful of researchers focused on some aspects of digital citizenship, and others aimed to develop an integrated curriculum, particularly at the middle and high school levels. However, minimal research exists on the nine elements of digital citizenship at the elementary level. Existing studies tend to reference Ribble’s nine elements of digital citizenship as a conceptual framework. Despite the much work conducted on the definitions and concept development concerning digital citizenship, gaps in the research in this area present an issue requiring further development.

8.8 Conclusion Despite growing up as “digital natives,” students still need education on digital citizenship. Therefore, the discussions addressed in this chapter examined the citizenship application in the digital age to guide education stakeholders. Many aspects of good citizenship apply to digital citizenship, where students need to conduct themselves as responsible, creative, and participatory individuals (Crompton, 2014; Frost, 2022). In addition, digital citizenship is not a list of dos and don’ts but raising considerate and compassionate citizens who can apprehend and act appropriately in an online environment (ISTE, n.d.). The rapidly changing digital sphere requires the ongoing teaching of students to have a conscious and reflective presence online (Weinstein & James, 2022). In addition, parents and educators should help students have one integrated life at home and school as digital citizens (Ohler, 2011). In this direction, literature provides

158

8  Digital Citizenship

multiple theoretical discussions and practical applications. For instance, developing character education programs servicing digital youth (Ohler, 2011) and focusing on the nine elements of the digital citizenship framework (Ribble, 2017). Others suggested more practical approaches, highlighting modeling and direct teaching to promote digital citizenship actively in schools (Crompton (2014). The literature highlights that developing digital citizens is not just one person’s job but everyone’s responsibility (Song, 2020). Therefore, teaching about digital citizenship requires the engagement of all education stakeholders. In other words, to create a positive digital culture, students, parents, educators, educational institutions, non-profit organizations, businesses, and government entities must collaborate. This will be a prevailing notion as the work on digital citizenship continues. Another trend in digital citizenship education is the positive digital citizenship movement. Even though many educators and parents are still concerned about safety and security issues, the positive digital citizenship movement is gaining momentum where the risk factors are not ignored, but affordances of digital space are celebrated (EPIK Deliberate Digital et al., 2017). Given the historical context and existing literature, multiple challenges will likely concern raising a digitally conscious and reflective generation in the U.S. and present policy and practice implications. First, the ever-changing digital sphere and disparities between home and school environments would likely challenge the education stakeholders to model and speak from one voice regarding digital citizenship practices (Ohler, 2011; Weinstein & James, 2022). Therefore, education stakeholders and policymakers should focus on this critical issue and take the necessary steps to ensure that students are not receiving conflicting messages concerning digital citizenship practices. Second, despite the much work conducted on defining digital citizenship and providing critical frameworks, the literature presents limited research investigating the impact of digital citizenship programs (Walters et  al., 2019). Yet, the current situation offers researchers and funding agencies opportunities to conduct and support further research in this area.

References Brichacek, A. (2014). Infographic: Citizenship in the digital age. https://eduinterface.weebly.com/ uploads/3/5/6/7/3567545/iste__infographic_citizenship_in_the_digital_age.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2022. Common Sense Media. https://www.commonsense.org. Accessed 18 May 2022. Crompton, H. (2014). Know the ISTE standards for teachers: Model digital citizenship. https://www.iste.org/explore/ISTE-­S tandards-­i n-­A ction/Know-­t he-­I STE-­S tandards-­f or-­ Teachers%3A-­Model-­digital-­citizenship. Accessed 24 Aug 2021. Curran, M. B. F. X., & Ribble, M. (2017). P-20 model of digital citizenship. https://f01.justanswer. com/ZRB89QaQ/DigiCitP-­20Model-­1.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2022. DigCitCommit Coalition. https://digcitcommit.org. Accessed 18 May 2022. Digital Citizenship Institute. https://www.digcitinstitute.com. Accessed 18 May 2022. EPIK Deliberate Digital. https://www.epik.org. Accessed 18 May 2022.

References

159

EPIK Deliberate Digital, Impero Software, The Digital Citizenship Institute, & Educate Empower Kids. (2017). Prevention Science: A framework for positive digital citizenship. http://www. epik.org/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2017/12/White-­Paper-­A -­F ramework-­f or-­P ositive-­D igital-­ Citizenship.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2022. Fingal, D. (2021). Infographic: I am a digital citizen!. https://staging.iste.org/explore/digital-­ citizenship/infographic-­im-­digital-­citizen. Accessed 4 May 2022. Frost, A. (2022). Building the themes of digital citizenship into instruction and business planning. https://edtechmagazine.com/k12/article/2022/05/building-­themes-­digital-­citizenship-­ instruction-­and-­business-­planning-­perfcon. Accessed 19 May 2022. International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). The ISTE standards for students. https://www.iste.org/standards/for-­students. Accessed 15 Dec 2020. International Society for Technology in Education. https://www.iste.org. Accessed 18 May 2022. International Society for Technology in Education. (n.d.). Digital citizenship in education. https:// www.iste.org/areas-­of-­focus/digital-­citizenship. Accessed 6 May 2022. Merod, A. (2022). Students lag on media literacy — But the gap isn’t unbridgeable. K-12Drive. https://www.k12dive.com/news/students-­l ag-­o n-­m edia-­l iteracy-­b ut-­t he-­g ap-­i snt-­ unbridgeable/624402. Accessed 7 June 2022. Ohler, J. (2011). Character education for the digital age. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/ character-­education-­for-­the-­digital-­age. Accessed 4 May 2022. Ribble, M. S. (2011). Excerpted from digital citizenship in schools (2nd Edn.). http://oped.educacion.uc.cl/website/images/sitio/formacion/estudios/marcos/ciudadania%20digital/Ribble_ Shaaban_2011_Digital_Citizenship_in_Schools.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2022. Ribble, M. S. (2017). Digital citizenship. https://www.digitalcitizenship.net/home.html. Accessed 9 May 2022. Ribble, M. S., & Bailey, G. D. (2007). Digital citizenship in schools. Technology in Education. Ribble, M. S., Bailey, G. D., & Ross, T. W. 2004. Digital citizenship: Addressing appropriate technology behavior. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ695788.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2022. Song, J. S. (2020). Digital citizenship in the time of COVID-19: How can states change the narrative? https://www.iste.org/explore/digital-­citizenship/digital-­citizenship-­time-­covid-­19-­how-­ can-­states-­change-­narrative. Accessed 30 Aug 2021. University of Michigan-Dearborn. (n.d.). EDT 501–research, trends, and issues in educational technology. Graduate catalog. http://catalog.umd.umich.edu/graduate/coursesaz/edt. Accessed 19 Aug 2022. UseTech4Good. https://usetech4good.com. Accessed 18 May 2022. Walters, M., Gee, D., & Mohammed, S. 2019. A literature review-Digital citizenship and elementary education. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=cel_ pubs. Accessed 9 May 2022. Weinstein, E., & James, C. (2022). Behind their screens: What teens are facing (and adults are missing). The MIT Press.

Chapter 9

Learning Technologies in Higher Education

Next normal.

9.1 Introduction Various digital technology resources, such as computers, mobile devices, educational apps, the world wide web, and broadband Internet, are available for educational use. The literature includes multiple terms describing digital technology use in education, such as learning technologies, instructional technology, educational technology, and information communication technology (ICT). The present chapter uses these terms interchangeably, describing digital technology applications to enhance teaching, learning, and “creative inquiry.” In general, higher education institutions in the U.S. apply a wide variety of technology in their operations to support academic, research, and administrative task. These services are typically housed under information and technology services (ITS) that oversee departments like infrastructure, research computing, information assurance, support services, and teaching and learning. For the purse of this chapter, the focus is on the latter–technology used in the teaching and learning process. This chapter addresses a wide range of learning technologies and related developments in higher education. The writing first describes U.S. universities’ common learning technology practices, including classroom technology, blended learning, online instruction, and massive open online courses (MOOCs). Next, the chapter discusses technology integration into teacher preparation programs, providing a historical context related to how teacher education programs at U.S. universities redesigned the learning technology experiences for future educators, moving from stand-alone technology courses to more integrated approaches. Subsequently, the writing in this chapter focuses on emerging technologies in higher education, including artificial intelligence, adaptive learning, learning analytics, learning design, extended reality, and open education resources. Then, the chapter addresses the current trends and developments in higher education as they impact technology © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Duran, Learning Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18111-5_9

161

162

9  Learning Technologies in Higher Education

initiatives. Finally, the writing ends with the most recent critical issues discussed and their implications for policy and practice. Three primary resources guided the discussions in this chapter. First is an extensive literature review related to the chapter’s central focus—learning technologies in higher education. Second, the author’s discussion informs the book’s content on over 20  years of professional teaching, research, and scholarship experiences on educational technology at a major U.S. research university. And third, the viewpoints and comments of students in the graduate-level educational technology courses that the author regularly teaches and collects data from present the vital viewpoint of practitioners focused on instructional technology and instructional design in higher education regarding how learning technologies affect their workplaces and profession.

9.2 Purpose of the Chapter Gaining a perspective on learning technology’s part in matters of accessibility, affordability, and related outcomes in postsecondary education is critical. Therefore, this chapter aims to contribute to understanding the design, development, and implementation of learning technologies in higher education. The chapter first describes U.S. universities’ common learning technology practices, including classroom technology, blended learning, online instruction, and massive open online courses (MOOCs). In this way, the reader gains an overall understanding of instructional technology application in U.S. colleges and universities. Next, the chapter discusses technology integration into teacher preparation programs. Given the context of the present book, providing a historical context related to how teacher education programs at U.S. universities design the learning technology experiences for future educators is vital. Emerging technologies appear likely to have a substantial educational impact and directly influence most U.S. higher education institutions in 5–10  years. Therefore, this chapter addresses a wide range of emerging technologies and related developments in higher education, including artificial intelligence, adaptive learning, learning analytics, learning design, extended reality, and open education resources. Making university decision-makers aware of these critical developments would be vital as they consider technology planning at their institutions. In addition, higher education faculty members considering grant developments and research proposals related to emerging technologies in higher education would find topics and discussions in this section valuable. It is also vital for university executives to understand current trends and issues surrounding learning technologies. Thus, later, the chapter emphasizes current

9.3  Common Learning Technology Practices in Higher Education

163

trends and issues related to learning technologies in higher education. This way, the chapter aims to assist post-secondary policymakers and university administrators in better understanding the potential and challenges of the learning technologies offer as they make informed decisions on these matters.

9.3 Common Learning Technology Practices in Higher Education Nearly 4000 postsecondary colleges and universities in the U.S. serve 16.6 million undergraduate and 3.1 million graduate students (NCES, 2021). Therefore, describing common learning technology practices in this vast array of institutions is challenging. However, there are general patterns of learning technology applications to observe in most of these institutions, such as available classroom technology use, blended learning, online instruction, and MOOCs. The following section provides an overall discussion of these applications.

9.3.1 Classroom Technology A typical classroom technology in post-secondary education includes a teacher station with a desktop computer, a projection device, a printer, and a high-speed internet connection. Some of these classrooms may have an interactive whiteboard like a SmartBoard. In addition, large lecture halls usually include sound systems with microphones and loudspeakers. Further, some classrooms and lecture halls may use student response systems such as clickers. Finally, even though it may vary from one university to another, students are typically allowed to bring their own devices, such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops. Most universities in the U.S. strive to improve their classroom technology presence by creating active learning environments. One such example is available at the university where the author of this book teaches; see Fig. 9.1 below. This particular active learning classroom is designed to foster collaborative learning (umdearborn. edu, n.d.). The classroom design includes flexible furniture and technology to facilitate collaborative learning activities. Some of the features in the classroom include a central teaching station for the instructor, moveable and table-mounted whiteboards, multiple display screens, flexible furniture for small-group activities, and varying other visuals for student and faculty use.

164

9  Learning Technologies in Higher Education

Fig. 9.1  Active learning classroom at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. (“Reproduced by permission of the publisher, umdearborn.edu”)

9.3.2 Blended Learning Another common practice of U.S. higher education is blended learning. Alexander et  al. (2019) described that blended learning includes integrating digital learning applications to enhance the learning outcomes of in-person teaching. The authors further elaborated that multimedia-rich learning venues, individualized or adaptive courseware, and web meeting tools are some common applications blended learning design utilizes. Finally, the authors highlighted that some students prefer blended learning, indicating its flexibility, accessibility, and technology integration. Yet, the authors noted that scaling blended learning still challenges some post-secondary institutions. On the other hand, Pelletier et  al. (2021) argued that the COVID-19 pandemic provided a “seismic jolt” that greatly accelerated the adoption of an array of new course models, including blended learning.

9.3.3 Online Instruction U.S. universities also commonly practice online teaching and learning. Depending on the percentage of the content delivered online, multiple modes of online offering exist, such as fully online, primarily online, or partially online (University of Michigan-Dearborn, n.d.). Pelletier et al. (2021) reported that the recent pandemic marshaled most post-secondary institutions toward new and essential ways of online course delivery. The authors also noted that many faculty discovered that online teaching is more than replicating the traditional face-to-face teaching through Zoom

9.4  Technology Integration into Teacher Preparation Programs

165

or the learning management systems they use. Soon many institutions have focused on online teaching pedagogy and renewed their commitment to quality assurance. Yet, this sudden exhilaration of online instruction brought some “side effects” for students and faculty, such as demotivation, frustration, and stress (Pelletier et al., 2021; Schaffhauser, 2020).

9.3.4 Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) MOOCs are another application that has gained momentum at U.S. higher education institutions in the last decade. MOOCs are free online course experiences at a large scale for anyone to enroll in, providing an affordable and flexible option to learn new skills, advance career trajectories, and gain life-long learning (mooc.org, n.d.). Some MOOC platforms include edX (edx.org) and Coursera (coursera.org), which collaborate with numerous member universities to offer courses in multiple areas. Shah (2020) reported that as millions of people suddenly found themselves with available time created by the COVID-19 pandemic, many turned to MOOC platforms, making 2020 the most popular year since its establishment in 2012. For instance, Shah noted that Yale University’s The Science of Well-Being course received over 2.5 million enrollments in 2020, becoming the most popular course during the pandemic. Marguerite (2012) argued that MOOCs have the potential to supplement traditional higher education, addressing some of the issues facing post-secondary institutions, such as tuition costs, student debt, and college participation rates. Yet, required course registration to access the learning materials is perceived as an issue in reaching a wider audience (Young, 2021a). In addition, MOOCs’ nonprofit structure seemed to take a different turn when a for-profit company, 2U, Inc., bought edX from its starters, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard University. It remains uncertain how the partnering universities will react to this “surprise end” to the nonprofit nature of one of the MOOC’s well-established platforms (Young, 2021b).

9.4 Technology Integration into Teacher Preparation Programs K-12 school teachers in the U.S. must obtain preservice teacher education from four-year colleges or universities. Even though the teacher preparation curriculum may vary by university and state, most prospective teachers are required to complete an undergraduate degree and pass a teacher certification exam (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). Given the context of the present book, technology integration in

166

9  Learning Technologies in Higher Education

teacher preparation programs finds its special place in this particular higher education chapter. The following section provides a historical perspective on learning technology experiences for future educators in their preparation programs. Particular attention is given to how teacher education programs at U.S. universities redesigned the learning technology experiences for future educators over the years, moving from stand-alone educational technology courses to more integrated approaches. Starting in the early 1990s, public K-12 schools in the U.S. experienced installments of more advanced computer technologies and related devices and tools. As a response and a first reaction, preservice teacher preparation programs added a required educational technology course to their curriculum (Duran, 2000). These courses generally focused on preparing future teachers to be proficient in operating various computer hardware and software applications and developing skills for integrating technology into teaching and learning. After about a decade long experience with this single-course approach, a nationwide study brought a wake-up call to the teacher preparation programs reporting that most of the preservice teachers (80%) were saying that they felt unprepared to effectively use technology in the classroom (National Center for Education Statistics, 1999). In addition, around the same time, another national survey revealed that technology infrastructure in K-12 schools increased more rapidly than the intended work teacher preparation programs conducted to prepare prospective teachers to use technology effectively in their professional practice (Moursung & Bielefeldt, 1999). Multiple studies recommended teacher preparation programs to explore different strategies than confining preservice teachers’ learning technology experiences to standalone technology courses. For instance, Duran (2000) and Moursung and Bielefeldt (1999) identified three critical components in this process: required core course work, effective faculty modeling, and technology-enhanced field experiences. To improve the nation’s capacity with technology proficient educators, the U.S. Department of Education launched the Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology (PT3) program in 1999, making about $400 million in grants available for further research and development (Rhine & Bailey, 2005). The authors reported that the PT3 project funded 466 projects in the following 3 years, some studying how to better integrate technology into teacher preparation programs. As Duran (2020) and Rhine and Bailey (2005) reported, an emerging theme from the PT3 research confirmed the earlier findings that Duran (2000) and Moursung and Bielefeldt (1999) wrote: to improve future teachers’ technology proficiency; teacher education programs must expand technology integration in their preparation programs. To achieve this goal, the PT3 projects delivered varying responses, such as establishing learning communities, developing faculty support systems, and enhancing field experiences (Rhine & Bailey, 2005). However, among the ideas generated by PT3 projects, one persists today: an extensive program is required to prepare technology-proficient teachers, combining core coursework, faculty modeling, and technology-enriched field experiences (Duran, 2020). Following the PT3 initiative, teacher preparation institutions in the U.S. primarily focused on executing effective practices. Implementation grants, such as the

9.5  Emerging Technologies in Higher Education

167

Teacher Quality Partnership Grant Program funded by the U.S.  Department of Education, have facilitated effective implementation practices (U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology, 2016). As a continued focus, in 2016, a policy brief published by the Office of Educational Technology at the U.S.  Department of Education provided further guidance for teacher preparation programs as they prepare prospective teachers who can effectively use learning technologies upon entering the profession (U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology, 2016). The policy brief, also known as Educational Technology in Teacher Preparation Challenge, recommended that teacher education programs across the country act on the following guiding principles: (a) active use of technology, (b) professional learning for higher education instructors, (c) program-deep and program-wide experiences, and (d) research-based standards and competencies. The guiding principles highlighted above provided the conceptual framework for the renewed redesign considerations in varying teacher preparation programs. For instance, in the teacher education program where the author of this book currently teaches, a reconstruction effort is currently underway, focusing on an integrated approach to educational technology in place of a model where a single course is offered as a requirement to students (Duran & Brunvand, 2021). The authors described that their teacher education curriculum requires a 3-credit, face-to-face educational technology course for all future teachers. The authors noted that usually taken early in the program, experiences offered in this course are typically disconnected from the methods courses and field-based experiences they gain later in the program. To address this disconnect, the authors described that the redesigned learning technology experiences would be offered through three different but interrelated course work at three different times as future teachers progress in their program. In sum, technology integration in U.S. teacher preparation programs has evolved over the years, starting with a stand-alone-technology-course offering but growing into more complex and integrated approaches where future teachers’ learning technology experiences are integrated into the entire teacher education program. Yet, further research is needed to fully understand the impact of the integrated approaches on preservice teachers’ educational technology competencies.

9.5 Emerging Technologies in Higher Education EDUCAUSE, a nonprofit educational organization based in the U.S. partnering with the New Media Consortium (NMC), investigates the status of technology integration in U.S. higher education institutions and publishes the EDUCAUSE Horizon Report series annually. With ongoing research and publications for about two decades, the Horizon Project can be considered one of the longest-running investigations concerning educational technology for higher education (Alexander et al., 2019). The review of the EDUCAUSE Horizon Reports for the last 3  years

168

9  Learning Technologies in Higher Education

Table 9.1  Emerging technologies in higher education 2019 Mobile learning Analytic technologies Mixed reality Artificial intelligence Blockchain Virtual assistant

2020 Adaptive learning technologies AI/machine learning education applications Analytics for student success Elevation of instructional design, learning engineering, and UX design in pedagogy Open educational resources XR (AR/VR/MR/haptic) technologies

2021 Artificial intelligence (AI) Blended and hybrid course models Learning analytics Microcredentialing Open educational resources (OER) Quality online learning

Adopted from EDUCAUSE Horizon Reports (Alexander et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020; and Pelletier et al., 2021)

(Alexander et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020a; Pelletier et al., 2021) highlighted multiple emerging technologies in higher education, see Table 9.1. As Pelletier et al. (2021) discussed, it is anticipated that the above-listed technologies and practices will significantly influence the future of higher education instruction and learning. Therefore, the following section provides a detailed discussion on some of these emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, adaptive learning, learning analytics, learning design, extended reality, and open education resources.

9.5.1 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Riedel et al. (2017) defined artificial intelligence (AI) as “computer systems that undertake tasks usually thought to require human cognitive processes and decision-­ making capabilities.” Alexander et al. (2019) argued that as the developments in the AI field mature, industries like education adopt its applications. The authors reported that AI applications in the U.S education sector would reach $85 million by 2022, nearing a compound annual growth of 48%, and the global trend presents a similar growth rate. Alexander et al. argued that this rapid growth is moving higher education institutions to partner with the industry to develop “AI-driven solutions” to lower college costs, reduce faculty and staff workloads, and offer personalized learning for students. In higher education, Alexander et al. (2019) noted that AI applications currently exist in admissions and library services, office productivity use, learning management systems, and student information systems. Citing specific examples, Alexander et  al. named IBM Watson Tutor, integrated into student readings and the Canvas LMS smart reminders beta testing to prompt students concerning proper online learning behaviors. In addition, Brown et  al. (2020a) and Pelletier et  al. (2021) included proctoring, grading and assessment, and disability support, among other current AI applications. Pelletier et al. (2021) discussed two critical points of relevance concerning AI applications in higher education: addressing current instructional challenges for

9.5  Emerging Technologies in Higher Education

169

student success and aligning the academic programs and their curriculum to serve better “Generation AI.” The authors argued that higher education’s most of the current AI applications are focused on the first point. For example, Brown et al. (2020a) and Pelletier et al. (2021) noted that automated chatbot services are the central focus in several U.S. universities, where AI provides immediate responses to inquiries like reaching out to the admissions office, registering for classes, or requesting items through the library. Another type of practical application, the authors added, is learning analytics. For example, AI is used to identify underachieving students to provide further assistance or analyze online course sessions to provide instructor feedback about emerging themes from their course sessions. Concerning the second point, serving Generation AI with their program and curriculum needs, Pelletier et al. argued that the post-secondary institutions are just starting. The authors shared the FloRA project (floraproject.org) as an example of this nature, where a multination research collaboration seeks to address “self-regulated learning” through facilitating personalized scaffolds. Alexander et  al. (2019) reported that AI works with institutional data beyond pedagogical applications to help colleges and universities in their daily operations, such as understanding retention rates, intervention needs, and program performance. Brown et al. (2020a) argued that many AI applications of this nature have the potential to bring a significant return on their initial investment. AI’s arrival in higher education also brought discussions about multiple issues, such as privacy, ethics, and access to student data (Alexander et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020a; Pelletier et al., 2021). Brown et al. (2020a) further argued that finding the delicate balance between these issues and growing use of AI applications would remain a contested topic for some time. Pelletier et al. (2021) discussed that the arrival of AI in educational institutions has remained controversial since its inception and “opened Pandora’s box.” The authors noted that perhaps the most publicly debated issue was the use of AI in proctoring examinations. In addition, Pelletier et al. (2021) added that some universities received legal challenges for collecting biometric data using AI systems as they monitor student progress and academic integrity without the student’s knowledge and consent. Further, there are concerns about AI’s potential use to eliminate higher education jobs like AIs replacing faculty teaching (Pelletier et  al., 2021). Despite these noted concerns, AI applications in higher education are projected to grow significantly (Alexander et al., 2019).

9.5.2 Adaptive Learning As Becker et al. (2018) defined, “encompassed by the personalized learning movement and closely linked to learning analytics, adaptive learning refers to technologies that monitor student progress and use data to modify instruction at any time” (p.  42). Alexander et  al. (2019) argued that adaptive learning is one of the most intriguing developments in recent years.

170

9  Learning Technologies in Higher Education

Brown et al. (2020a) clarified how adaptive learning differs from adaptive technology and personalized learning. The authors explained that adaptive technologies are those digital platforms and applications we can build or purchase. Personalized learning includes instructional practices and course experiences designed to address individual students’ learning needs. On the other hand, the authors described that adaptive learning is “one form of personalized learning in which adaptive technology plays a major role” (p. 14). Alexander et al. (2019) noted how adaptive learning is perceived from a student and instructor perspective. The authors pointed out that, for students, adaptive technologies provide individualized, real-time feedback as they advance in their learning path regardless of the level at which they begin. For instructors, adaptive learning provides remediation in their courses by leveraging machine learning and artificial intelligence. Thus, Brown et  al. (2020a) explained that adaptive learning allows faculty to assume more of a facilitator role rather than a lecturer. Citing Zone and Johnson (2016), Brown et  al. summarized an adaptive system as “providing students with all the instructional resources online and providing instructors with the learning data needed to be more informed coaches and advisors” (p. 15). Brown et  al. (2020a) reported that multiple U.S. universities currently apply some adaptive instructional systems to help students in their academic progress. The authors pointed out that in most cases, adaptive learning experiences positively impact student learning, particularly if paired with course redesign. The authors shared multiple examples of this nature. For instance, Oregon State University observed a 12% increase rate after implementing an “adaptive redesign” of a college algebra course. Arizona State University (ASU) reported similar results in their self-­ paced algebra course. In this case, students’ course completion rate with a C or better increased by 30%. At ASU, longitudinal studies with a large group of students from many demographic groups also indicated positive results in a developmental math course that students with low math skills take. Brown et al. noted that adaptive learning applications are conducted in other subject areas. For instance, the authors noted that ASU expanded its offer to economics, history, psychology, and philosophy. In addition, the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater applies adaptive instruction in teacher education, and the University of Central Florida offers a Spanish course using adaptive learning. The results above indicate adaptive technology’s role in personalized learning applications (Brown et al. 2020a). However, the author noted that lessons learned from the recent experiences remind us of a critical discussion point in overall learning technology literature: “technology alone does not produce improved learning outcomes” (p. 14). Therefore, the authors argued that appropriate support for students and instructors is equally essential for a successful outcome. In addition, Brown et al. reported that, in the case of ASU experience, the combined effort seems to bring an impact, such as using adaptive technology in coordination with active learning. In another case, ASU combined adaptive instruction with another innovative application called “stretch semester,” which allowed students who needed more time to complete the course requirements to take an incomplete grade and continue the course for free the following semester (Johnson, n.d.).

9.5  Emerging Technologies in Higher Education

171

In sum, as Alexander et al. (2019) argued, even though it is not scaled enough in higher education adaptive learning provides a potential improvement in post-­ secondary teaching and learning. Yet, Brown et al. (2020a) argued that some challenges remain for further adoption. First, the authors noted that redesigning individual courses or entire program curricula is a significant undertaking, as they typically involve the cost of multiple experts, such as faculty, instructional designer, content developer, research and evaluation experts, and technology architects. In addition, Brown et al. highlighted the concerns about “privacy, the ethical use of student data, and ensuring that the technology is designed to be equitable, inclusive, and free from implicit bias” (p.  16). Finally, the authors noted a “vital question about what the adaptive system is “thinking” when it issues recommendations to guide students: what kinds of data and algorithms are being used, where they come from, and are they inclusive?” (p. 16).

9.5.3 Learning Analytics Pelletier et al. (2021) described that learning analytics focuses on educational institutions’ teaching and learning data as a subset of the data analytics field. The authors argued that in the case of higher education, learning analytics help make data-­ informed decisions about how to serve a diverse student population better. Typically, Pelletier et al. noted that the data sets collected by post-secondary institutions come from varying sources, such as learning management systems, student information systems, and extracurricular data sets. However, the authors also highlighted that course- and unit-level data analysis is more common, leading to critical curriculum and program developments. Alexander et al. (2019) argued that analytics technologies are critical to student support initiatives and will be vital to institutional success in the coming years. Pelletier et  al. (2021) noted that post-secondary institutions could apply learning analytics in many different areas and functions, such as academic support, advising, and access to disability services. In this way, they could provide more “just in time” support like early-alert systems that would be essential to reach out to those less motivated and underachieving students in a timely fashion. Given specific examples, Pelletier et al. (2021) highlighted the increased use of learning analytics “dashboards.” For instance, the authors mentioned the “My Learning Analytics” dashboard from the University of Michigan. This application, which is integrated into the university’s learning management system, Canvas, allows students and faculty to view teaching and learning data through visualizations that enable the option of seeing and analyzing patterns. The Center for the Analytics of Learning and Teaching at Colorado State University (chhs.colostate. edu/alt) offers similar services by helping students and instructors interpret learning analytics for practical applications, such as assisting students in understanding their study habits and approaches. Brown et al. (2020a) shared another dashboard example from the University of Iowa called Elements of Success (teach.uiowa.edu/

172

9  Learning Technologies in Higher Education

elements-­success), which allows students to assess their course progress toward reaching critical outcomes. Finally, The Chronicle of Higher Education (2022) reported how learning analytics are used by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Morgan State University to identify needs for improvement in student outcomes. The report noted that these institutions documented building more supportive and inclusive learning environments by sharing data points with instructors like grade distribution and student performance across all courses. Further, the report pointed out that this strategy nearly doubled Morgan State’s graduation rate for “first-time, full-time students” during the past decade. In addition to instructional applications, learning analytics is also helpful for advising purposes. Brown et  al. (2020a) argued that with increased expectations from the advising staff to assist with student success, analytics applications are used for early alerts and proactive outreach. The authors noted that the Berkeley Online Advising project at the University of California at Berkeley and the COMPASS project at the University of California–Irvine are two examples of learning analytics tools developed for academic advisors. Yet, effective use of learning analytics applications for instructional purposes or assisting with advising needs generally requires additional training for students, faculty, and advisors (Pelletier et  al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021). As higher education institutions increasingly use learning analytics, policy recommendations about privacy, equity, and ethical considerations are paramount (Alexander et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020a; Pelletier et al., 2021). Alexander et al. (2019) argued that colleges and universities must address the essential question of student data privacy when they collect learning analytics data and set policies and procedures to ethically and securely protect student data. For instance, in a recent case, George Washington University’s president accepted that one of the university’s analytics projects was in violation of university policy and offered a public apology (Smalley, 2022). Brown et al. (2020a) argued that the student data issue becomes even more critical when technical tools label students “at risk.” The authors further argued that data collected and analyzed through learning analytics might not include the full spectrum of factors and responsibilities that could impact student learning, such as family responsibilities or work schedules. Pelletier et al. (2021) recommended that the campus stakeholders consider establishing a “data strategy” with a purpose and mission. A recent survey presented room for improvement in this particular issue, with 75% of higher education respondents saying that their institution had not set clear goals for using analytics (Zalaznick, 2020). Pelletier et  al. (2021) reported that most higher education institutions aim to improve student equity and access using learning analytics data. However, citing survey findings from Zalaznick (2020), the authors reported that while most post-­ secondary education respondents (80%) say they use student data, only half of them (40%) reported using them to address achievement gaps specifically. Pelletier et al. perceived this finding as a missed opportunity and argued that learning analytics could be essential in supporting students throughout the enrollment, retention, and graduation pathways.

9.5  Emerging Technologies in Higher Education

173

In sum, the future of learning analytics reveals promising instructional and administrative applications in higher education. However, institutions carefully consider meeting strategic goals and ethical standards. This would require stakeholders’ training across the institution in data collection and analysis.

9.5.4 Learning Design Alexander et al. (2019) defined learning design as the application of the “design-­ thinking approaches to course content and engaging activities, as well as applying principles of universal design to develop content in multiple modalities to ensure access for all students” (p. 15). Brown et al. (2020a) described that the “learning design ecosystem” could include varying role players, all aiming to foster students’ educational experiences. In addition, the authors noted that instructional designers and technology experts are integral to learning design teams. Finally, Brown et al. asserted that the learning designer (LD) is the functional title of individuals in this inclusive profession. Brown et al. (2020a) described that LDs generally apply multiple strategies for an integrated course design, such as effective teaching methods, student-centered learning activities, digital technology integration, and vigorous assessment plans. In addition, the authors noted that collaborating with faculty and course instructors is an integral part of the design process to create effective learning experiences for all students. Brown et al. further explained that the LD field rapidly evolves as new developments emerge from efforts in learning sciences, systems design and design thinking, user experience (UX) methods, and data from learning analytics. Therefore, the authors noted that LDs are typically very engaged in the practical application of learning design, such as flipped classrooms, gamification, virtual learning environments, and online course development. Finally, Brown et al. noted that the complexities of the LD work had brought new recognized titles like “learning experience designer” (LXD) and “learning engineers.” Brown et al. (2020a) shared multiple examples describing how U.S. universities use LD, LXD, and learning engineering applications. The authors noted that learning engineering received much interest in higher education, emerging from the digital learning space. Wagner et  al. (2018) described learning engineering as “an evolving field that focuses on how engineering methodologies can inform and improve learning technologies and related architectures.” Carnegie Mellon University’s The Simon Initiative (cmu.edu/simon) gives an example of how learning engineering is used in a cross-disciplinary application (Brown et al., 2020a). The authors described that this project aims to further develop student learning outcomes through learning theory application, technology-­ enhanced learning, and a continuous feedback cycle. Sharing another example, Brown et al. highlighted the Learning Innovation hub at Duke University (learninginnovation.duke.edu). The hub offers services to faculty development in their student-­ centered teaching and active learning strategies. In addition, the hub support faculty

174

9  Learning Technologies in Higher Education

in learning technologies and online instruction. Similar teaching and learning hubs are more common in other U.S. universities. Finally, Standard University’s “d.school” (dschool.stanford.edu) provides a unique approach where the focus is not on “how to design” but rather on “design thinking” (Kormaz, 2018). The author described the design thinking strategy’s premise: “design is a process of creative problem solving, and it can be applied to various fields… education is no exception.” Brown et al. (2020a) argued that the developments in LD, LXD, and learning engineering would continue to impact teaching and learning in higher education. The authors further noted that at some institutions learning design initiatives include “boundary-spanning” partnerships with varying stakeholders such as students, faculty, LDs, UX designers, and student accessibility specialists. When fostered well, these partnerships help all parties involved meet the needs of students more effectively, said the authors. Yet, they also noted that this cross-unit, multidisciplinary team approach might become challenging to some involved parties. In addition, the authors added that adequate resources and administrative support are other critical areas to successfully implement such a collaborative engagement. Finally, Kilgore et al. (2019) pointed out that as expectations from learning designers become more complex, universities should clarify the titles, roles, and responsibilities.

9.5.5 Extended Reality (XR) Brown et al. (2020a) described that extended reality (XR) is a “comprehensive term for the environments that either blend the physical with the virtual or provide fully immersive virtual experiences” (p. 29). The authors noted that augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) are the two standard XR technologies. Brown et al. further described that physical objects and places overlay with virtual content in an AR environment. On the other hand, they said, VR is an entirely virtual domain involving manipulations and interactions with virtual objects within an immersive experience. Finally, the authors explained that holography is another type of XR experience, where a two-dimensional object is presented as a three-­ dimensional image. The XR technologies in higher education curricula show a promising prospect even though cost and content creation are currently present a challenge (Brown et al., 2020a). The authors explained that the current exploration of XR technologies in higher education is focused on setting up special labs or centers rather than an “XR wholesale.” Brown et al. noted that most centers operate in a shared place for campus-wide collaboration and use. In addition, the authors pointed out that some other initiatives are focused on making XR resources available for post-secondary institutions, such as Penn State’s immersive Experience Catalog (imex.psu.edu) and North Carolina State’s VRPlants (vrplants.cals.ncsu.edu). Brown et al. (2020a) highlighted XR’s relevance for teaching and learning and argued that this technology shows great learning potential when effectively embedded in instruction. For instance, citing Pomerantz (2018), the authors noted that XR

9.5  Emerging Technologies in Higher Education

175

was effective in “skills-based and competency pedagogies.” In addition, Brown et al. reported that XR has the potential to offer learners the opportunity to experience co-creating course content. The Immersive Media & Learning Lab at California State University–San Bernardino (csusb.edu) is an example of this nature. Sharing XR application examples, Brown et al. (2020a) highlighted the University of Georgia’s X-Reality Labs in Engineering Education (eeti.uga.edu), Boise State University’s GIMM program (boisestate.edu/gimm), and Dartmouth College’s Data Experiences and Visualizations Studio (devstudio.dartmouth.edu). In addition, the authors named Building Science at Auburn University (cadc.auburn.edu), which provides students with VR viewing platforms of 360-degree active construction sites. Further, Enhancing the Textbook with AR at the North Carolina State University (delta.ncsu.edu) added AR application to graphic design textbooks, allowing readers to listen to a virtual guide, employ an AR magnifying glass, and take formative quizzes. Sharing specific examples focused on special needs students, Brown et  al. (2020a) highlighted the University of Nevada–Reno (unr.edu), where an XR experience was designed for students with cerebral palsy, making them feel like they were walking. Similarly, the authors noted Gallaudet University (gallaudet.edu), which primarily serves deaf and hearing difficulty students, in which VR is implemented to invent ways to more efficiently calibrate hearing aids. Brown et al. (2020a) argued that there are examples of XR deployment helping to reduce overall institutional costs. For instance, the authors shared the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine’s (vet.cornell.edu) XR-based X-ray positioning simulator for their livestock, saving space, time, and expenses along with pedagogical and ethical values. Initial findings from XR research seem to highlight an emerging thread, XR applications show significant benefits when they are closely paired with non-XR learning experiences (Brown et al., 2020a). For example, citing Lamb et al. (2019), the authors pointed out that VR application for writing in a science course provided significant results for students who used both VR and a textbook compared to those who used either VR alone or the text alone. In addition, another preliminary study comparing learning retention in medical students’ “mixed-reality” experiences to augment dissection showed significantly more positive responses to mixed reality among participants who found it easier for their learning and teamwork (Baratz et al., 2022). As McMurtrie (2019) argued, the opportunities for developing new ways of learning through XR are ample but come with challenges. Brown et  al. (2020a) noted “twin challenges” for further XR application in higher education, requiring time and skills. In addition, the authors explained that faculty considering XR integration in their courses would likely like to see a “fit” into their current instructional practice with a similar or lower cost. Finally, the authors stated, “the greater the XR fidelity, the greater the learning impact” (p. 30–31). In sum, the XR community expects that the equipment costs for XR technology will decrease while its capabilities increase (Brown et al. 2020a). Furthermore, as the authors argued, given the significant development in wireless and cellular

176

9  Learning Technologies in Higher Education

networks like Wi-Fi 6 and 5G and their performance in learning, it seems very likely that XR experiences will grow to be increasingly immersive and powerful over time and will also be available to both in-person and remote learners.

9.5.6 Open Educational Resources (OER) Wiley (n.d.) defined “open content” as any copyrighted material permitted for free use by anyone to engage in the 5R activities–retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute. The author explained that the term open content is typically used for writing, images, sounds, and videos, excluding software described by another term–“open source.” Opencontent.org (n.d) described the 5R in the following way: • Retain – make, own, and control a copy of the resource (e.g., download and keep your own copy) • Revise – edit, adapt, and modify your copy of the resource (e.g., translate into another language) • Remix – combine your original or revised copy of the resource with other existing material to create something new (e.g., make a mashup) • Reuse – use your original, revised, or remixed copy of the resource publicly (e.g., on a website, in a presentation, in a class) • Redistribute  – share copies of your original, revised, or remixed copy of the resource with others (e.g., post a copy online or give one to a friend) Pelletier et al. (2021) reported that the global COVID-19 pandemic presented the growing importance of open educational resources (OER), particularly digital OER that students could access from anywhere, any time, and on any device. The authors noted that when students were unexpectedly displaced from the university campuses, leaving their physical textbooks behind, OER provided a flexible alternative to assist with this sudden transition. Pelletier et al. further argued that affordable books and resources are gradually gaining traction in numerous states as favored by students. And, the pandemic gave the needed boost in this direction. Yet, multiple authors noted whether the pandemic would have a long-term impact on awareness and adoption of OER (Lederman, 2021; Pelletier et al., 2021). Educause (n.d.) listed multiple OER projects from different U.S. universities. For example, MIT’s OpenCourseWare (ocw.mit.edu) offers digital publication of all MIT course content. Similarly, California State University’s MERLOT collection (merlot.org) offers over 35,000 open course materials. In addition, OER Commons (oercommoncommons.org) was created as a hub for instructional materials. Lastly, Educause examples included the World Digital Library (WDL), making significant primary materials available freely on the Internet in multilingual format.

9.5  Emerging Technologies in Higher Education

177

Like Educause examples, Pelletier et  al. (2021) listed multiple OER projects from varying U.S. universities. For instance, the authors highlighted the University of North Carolina System’s (northcarolina.edu) Course Enhancement and OER Collections, which provides high-demand course resources and materials. More than 70 subject-matter experts work on varying content-specific teams to design and develop the content. The authors listed Boston University’s Learning Blocks (bu. edu/dli) as another example of an OER, allowing the use of an open-source WordPress plugin that helps the development of interactive OER. This application enables students to interact with self-assessment questions embedded by faculty in varying course materials, such as text, audio, and video content. Adding another example, Pelletier et al. noted the Zero Textbook Cost Initiative at College of the Canyons (canyons.edu), allowing students to serve as OER student specialists who work with faculty, instructional designers, technology specialists, and librarians to develop OER materials. Finally, the authors noted that some OER projects provide a new perspective on extending the use of open content materials. For instance, the authors shared that Virtual Immersive Teaching and Learning (VITaL) resources developed at San Diego State University (its.sdsu.edu/initiatives/vital) present how OER is moving beyond textbooks. Pelletier et al. (2021) argued that OER provides considerable cost savings for college students. In addition, the authors pointed out that OER could be instrumental in retention and educational outcomes. Yet, Pelletier et al. noted that there is a need for comparative studies investigating the impact of OER on student learning outcomes. Addressing the potential impact and challenges, Pelletier et  al. (2021) cited Nusbaum et al. (2020) and argued that one of the most critical advantages of OER is “increased societal equity” for students. The authors pointed out that OER becomes the alternate option for those students who cannot easily access traditional learning resources due to the affordability issue. The authors noted that another advantage of OER, often available online, enables content updates faster than conventional printed materials. In addition, Alexander et al. (2019) argued that OER allows users to become content supporters, developing their resources or collaborating with other contributors. Finally, the authors pointed out that OER is cost-­ effective even though some commercialized OER resources charge fees. Yet, Pelletier et al. noted that despite the COVID-19 pandemic’s urgency, faculty adoption rates of OER remain flat. Citing Seaman and Seaman (2020), Pelletier et al. mentioned that 70% of higher education faculty still require a printed textbook, and 87% reported using the exact text during the previous semester. Further, Pelletier et al. noted that OER as a required course material did not increase in 2020 even though there was growth in faculty awareness. One explanation the authors noted was the surge of commercial vendor options such as inclusive access, providing the lower-priced format of imprint textbooks.

178

9  Learning Technologies in Higher Education

9.6 Current Trends Related to Learning Technologies in Higher Education Pelletier et al. (2021) argued that to better understand the possible future of teaching and learning in higher education, we should realize larger trends shaping the world outside the compounds of university campuses. The authors noted that education is traditionally impacted by multiple social, political, technological, economic, and environmental trends. The discussion in this section addresses trends related to learning technologies in higher education. Pelletier et  al. argued that continuous adoption of hybrid learning models, increased use of learning technologies, and faculty development for online instruction are the technological trends that will impact higher education in the coming years. In other words, a “next normal” is on the horizon for post-secondary institutions’ instructional activities. Multiple reports highlighted that higher education institutions’ adoption of blended or hybrid course delivery modes had increased dramatically since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (McCormack, 2020; Pelletier et al., 2021). The authors argued that this new way of instruction would likely leave a mark on college classrooms and transform traditional learning methods in higher education. Pelletier et  al. noted that instructional strategies that offer flexible movement between face-to-face and online learning with minimized disruption would be critical for institutions to ensure continuing education. Because, they said, remote learning models of post-secondary education will persist in a post-pandemic era and may never return to the pre-pandemic way of practice. Therefore, the authors argued that faculty and instructors should continue exploring effective teaching pedagogies in a hybrid mode. In addition, they said, students need to develop technology literacies and new skills to better equip themselves for the remote learning environment, which often requires independent learning skills. Increased use of blended or hybrid learning modes discussed above has accelerated the adoption of new learning technologies (McCormack, 2020; McKenzie, 2020; Pelletier et al., 2021). The authors noted that institutions and instructors who were previously hesitant to use educational technology, such as learning management systems, video conferencing, or virtual classrooms, had become reliant on these technologies to conduct their instructional activities. Pelletier et al. expect the continuing use of varying learning technologies on the road ahead. And, they said, the critical benefit of these technologies in the teaching and learning process would be instrumental in new developments and innovation for entirely new learning technologies. Pelletier et al. (2021) discussed that faculty members’ acceptance, professional development, and technical support are essential for adopting and effectively using learning technologies. The authors argued that as higher education institutions moved to remote and online instruction, faculty needed to embrace new ways of teaching and working with contemporary technologies. Therefore, ongoing investment and development in faculty training, including online and remote education

9.7  Critical Issues Related to Learning Technologies in Higher Education

179

pedagogies, will be critical for them to keep in phase with advancements in instructional technologies. Equally essential is to provide ongoing and on-time technical support for faculty as they embrace this new way of instructional practice. It is also critical to highlight that as higher education institutions move forward with the further adoption of remote and hybrid learning models, new demands will emerge in hiring support staff in educational technology, instructional design, and technical support (Pelletier et al., 2021). This type of expertise and support would be essential for faculty and students as they put renewed emphasis on and awarenesses of online teaching and learning, along with the fundamental nature of digitization and automation of some of the tasks that this new learning environment will necessitate (Dua et al., 2020; Llopis, 2020).

9.7 Critical Issues Related to Learning Technologies in Higher Education Multiple critical issues will require further attention from higher education stakeholders as they consider policy and practice decisions related to learning technologies. For example, Pelletier et al. (2021) noted that the digital divide and mental health issues are the most critical challenges currently confronting post-secondary institutions. The following section provides a further discussion on these topics. Pelletier et al. (2021) argued that the COVID-19 pandemic exposed digital inequities further that existed before among college students. The authors discussed that the future of higher education would rely more on remote technologies and digital learning tools, often requiring a broadband internet connection. Therefore, they said, the digital dive gap will only widen between those who haves and have nots. The authors noted that with the dive beginning as early as K-12education (see Chap. 7) and becoming more pronounced due to the current pandemic, many students would start their college education far behind peers. Even before the pandemic, mental health issues among students were a significant concern on college campuses (Pelletier et al., 2021). The authors pointed out that the disruptions caused by the pandemic have escalated the mental health issues of not only students but faculty and staff. For instance, a survey conducted earlier in the pandemic revealed that 80% of participating college students reported the pandemic negatively impacted their mental health, and 20% reported a significant impact (Brown et al., 2020b). One should wonder if the remote learning necessities, isolation from in-person classroom experiences, and related desocialization affected this outcome. Either way, Pelletier et al. recommended that institutions investing in remote and hybrid learning modes for the post-pandemic era should consider placing support structures for students and their employees with mental health challenges.

180

9  Learning Technologies in Higher Education

9.8 Conclusion Post-secondary institutions in the U.S. apply a wide variety of technology to support academic, research, and administrative initiatives. The discussion presented in this chapter examined learning technologies and related developments in higher education. Gaining a perspective on learning technology’s role was critical as it impacted access, affordability, and postsecondary education outcomes. Considering overall patterns, U.S. universities’ standard learning technology practices include classroom technology, blended learning, online instruction, and massive open online courses (MOOCs). For example, observing a teacher station with a desktop computer, a projection device, a printer, and a high-speed internet connection is common in the instructional classroom. Blended learning is also commonly practiced in colleges and universities, where digital learning applications enhance classroom teaching. In addition, U.S. universities commonly offer online instruction in multiple modalities, such as fully online, primarily online, or partially online. Finally, although it is not as common as the previously noted applications, MOOCs are another application that higher institutions consider as they provide an affordable and flexible option to learn new and advanced skills. Teacher education is essential to most higher education institutions in the U.S. Therefore, understanding how teacher preparation programs design learning technology experiences for future educators is vital. Considering the historical context, technology integration into teacher preparation programs presents a significant shift from required stand-alone educational technology courses to more integrated approaches (Duran, 2020). In addition, after two decades of exploration and research, the institutions try to prepare technology-proficient new teachers by offering “program-deep and program-wide experiences” (Duran & Brunvand, 2021; U. S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology, 2016). Yet, further research is needed to fully understand the impact of the integrated approaches on preservice teachers’ learning technology competencies. Emerging technologies will create a substantial educational impact and directly influence U.S. higher education institutions. Among those, artificial intelligence, adaptive learning, learning analytics, learning design, extended reality, and open education resources present a possible high impact on higher education teaching and learning (Alexander et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020a; Pelletier et al., 2021). Therefore, higher education stakeholders and university decision-makers should carefully watch the developments in these areas and consider integrating them into campus technology planning. In addition, the arrival of these emerging technologies will bring multiple issues, such as privacy, equity, and ethics, to the attention of faculty, students, and higher education administration (Alexander et  al., 2019; Brown et al., 2020a; Pelletier et al., 2021). However, finding the delicate balance between these issues and the impact of emerging technology applications will remain a contested topic for some time (Brown et al., 2020a). Three particular trends would like to capture further attention in guiding higher education learning technology initiatives. First is the continuous adoption of hybrid

References

181

learning models. Varying studies reported the higher education institutions’ adoption of blended or hybrid course delivery modes since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (McCormack, 2020; Pelletier et al., 2021). The reports also indicated that this trend would likely continue during the post-pandemic era. The second is the accelerated adoption of new learning technologies. Multiple accounts noted the increased use of learning technologies among faculty and students since the pandemic (McCormack, 2020; McKenzie, 2020; Pelletier et  al., 2021). The same reports expect that this trend will persist and higher education will never return to the pre-pandemic way of practice. Finally, capacity building for faculty and instructional staff to continue offering online instruction is another trend that current literature indicates (Pelletier et al., 2021). Coupled with the rise of emerging technologies, these trends seem to bring a “next normal” to higher education teaching and learning. Therefore, policymakers and higher education executives should strategically reimagine the future of post-secondary teaching and learning in the coming years. Given the historical context and current literature, multiple challenges will likely impede the efforts guiding learning technology adoption in higher education, presenting policy and practice implications. First, the digital divide will continue to confront post-secondary institutions as digital inequities persist in some U.S. communities (Pelletier et al., 2021). See Chap. 5 for further discussions about the digital divide. Given the trends toward higher education’s increased reliance on remote technologies and digital learning tools, the digital divide will be more pronounced, leaving some college students far behind peers. Therefore, policymakers and higher education stakeholders should consider addressing this critical issue as they envision their institutions in the post-pandemic era. Finally, mental health issues are another critical challenge currently concerning college campuses (Pelletier et al., 2021). The disruptions experienced during the pandemic apparently escalated the issue among students, faculty, and staff (Brown et al., 2020b). Given the possibility that remote learning necessities, isolation from in-person classroom experiences, and related desocialization had an impact on this outcome, institutions investing in remote and hybrid learning models for the post-pandemic era should consider ways to support students and their employees with mental health challenges.

References Alexander, B., Ashford-Rowe, K., Barajas-Murphy, N., Dobbin, G., Knott, J., McCormack, M., Pomerantz, J., Seilhamer, R., & Nicole, W. (2019). EDUCAUSE horizon report: 2019 higher education edition. https://library.educause.edu/-­/media/files/library/2019/4/2019horizonrep ort.pdf?la=en&hash=C8E8D444AF372E705FA1BF9D4FF0DD4CC6F0FDD1. Accessed 3 September 2021. Baratz, G., Sridharan, P. S., Yong, V., Tatsuoka, C., Griswold, M. A., & Wish-Baratz, S. (2022). Comparing learning retention in medical students using mixed-reality to supplement dissection: A preliminary study. International Journal of Medical Education, 13, 107–114.

182

9  Learning Technologies in Higher Education

Becker, S. A., Brown, M., Dahlstrom, E., Davis, A., DePaul, K., Diaz, V., & Pomerantz, J. (2018). NMC horizon report: 2018 higher education edition. EDUCAUSE. https://library.educause. edu/~/media/files/library/2018/8/2018horizonreport.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2022. Brown, M., McCormack, M., Reeves, JD, Brooks, C., & Grajek, S. (2020a). EDUCAUSE horizon report: Teaching and learning edition. Accessed 14 September 2021. https://library.educause. edu/-­/media/files/library/2020/3/2020_horizon_report_pdf.pdf?la=en&hash=08A92C1799 8E8113BCB15DCA7BA1F467F303BA80. Brown, S., Alexander, C., & Kafka, A. C. (2020b). Covid-19 has worsened the student mental-­ health crisis. Can resilience training fix it? The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www. chronicle.com/article/covid-­19-­has-­worsened-­the-­student-­mental-­health-­crisis-­can-­resilience-­ training-­fix-­it/?cid2=gen_login_refresh&cid=gen_sign_in. Accessed 8 august 2022. Dua, A., Cheng, W-L., Lund, S., De Smet, A., Robinson, O., & Sanghvi, S. (2020). What 800 executives envision for the postpandemic workforce. McKinsey Global Institute. https:// www.mckinsey.com/featured-­insights/future-­of-­work/what-­800-­executives-­envision-­for-­the-­ postpandemic-­workforce. Accessed 8 August 2022. Duran, M. (2000). Examination of technology integration into an elementary teacher education program: One university’s experience (Ph.D. thesis). Ohio University. Duran, M. (2020). ICT and digitization in the United States: Research, trends, & issues (1–34). In S. Jornitz & P. Parreira do Amaral (Eds.), The education system of the America (Global education system series). Springer International Publishing. Duran, M., & Brunvand, S. (2021). Redesigning educational technology experiences for preservice teachers: An integrated approach. In E. Langran & L. Archambault (Eds.), Proceedings of society for information technology & teacher education international conference (pp. 1204–1208). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/219276. Accessed 27 July 2022. Educause. (n.d.). Open educational resources (OER). https://library.educause.edu/topics/teaching-­ and-­learning/open-­educational-­resources-­oer. Accessed 8 August 2022. Johnson, D. P. (n.d.). College algebra at Arizona State University: How ASU removed barriers and increased undergraduate success. Every Learner Everywhere. https://solve.everylearnereverywhere.org/asset/UzgNGtz2HHFcilrSYnKo. Accessed 31 July 2022. Kilgore, W., Patrice Prusko, P., & Gogia, L. (2019). A snapshot of instructional design: Talking points for a field in transition. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2019/8/a-­snapshot-­of-­instructional-­design-­talking-­points-­for-­a-­field-­in-­transition. Accessed 3 August 2022. Kormaz, C. 2018. “ID 2 LXD” from instructional design to learning experience design: The rise of design thinking. In Ana-Paula Correia (Ed.). Driving educational change: Innovations in action. https://ohiostate.pressbooks.pub/drivechange/chapter/id-­2-­lxd-­from-­instructional-­ design-­to-­learning-­experience-­design-­the-­rise-­of-­design-­thinking. Accessed 3 August 2022. Lamb, R. L., Etopio, E., Hand, B., & Yoon, S. Y. (2019). Virtual reality simulation: Effects on academic performance within two domains of writing in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28, 371–381. Lederman, D. (2021). Awareness of open educational resources grows, but adoption doesn't. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-­learning/article/2021/03/18/pandemic-­ didnt-­speed-­adoption-­open-­educational-­resources-­outlook. Accessed 8 August 2022. Liu, M., Pan, Z., Li, C., Han, S., Shi, Y., & Pan, X. (2021). Using learning analytics to support teaching and learning in higher education: A systematic focused review of journal publications from 2016 to present. International Journal on E-Learning, 20(2), 137–169. Llopis, G. (2020). Post pandemic: How must colleges and universities reinvent themselves? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/glennllopis/2020/10/17/post-­pandemic-­how-­must-­colleges-­and-­ universities-­reinvent-­themselves/?sh=50be82a73e88. Accessed 8 august 2020. Marguerite, D. (2012). The impact of MOOCs on higher education. College and University, 88(2), 24–30.

References

183

McCormack, M. (2020). EDUCAUSE quickpoll results: Fall readiness for teaching and learning. Educause Review. https://er.educause.edu/blogs/2020/9/educause-­quickpoll-­results-­fall-­ readiness-­for-­teaching-­and-­learning. Accessed 9 August 2022. McKenzie, L. (2020). New zoom competitor targets higher ed users. Inside Higher Ed. https:// www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/10/15/ed-­t ech-­veterans-­l aunch-­z oom-­c hallenger-­ engageli. Accessed 8 August 2022. McMurtrie, B. (2019). Virtual reality comes to the classroom. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/virtual-­reality-­comes-­to-­the-­classroom. Accessed 6 august 2022. mooc.org. (n.d.). About MOOCs. https://www.mooc.org. Accessed 26 July 2022. Moursung, D., & Bielefeldt, T. (1999). Will new teachers be prepared to teach in a digital age? A national survey on information technology in teacher education. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/248450194_Will_New_Teachers_Be_Prepared_To_Teach_in_a_Digital_Age. Accessed 26 January 2021. National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifications of public school teachers. U.S.  Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/ pubs99/1999080.pdf. Accessed 26 January 2021. National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Characteristics of postsecondary students. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/ coe/indicator/csb#:~:text=In%20fall%202019%2C%20there%20were,institutions%20in%20 the%20United%20States. Accessed 29 January 2022. Nusbaum, A. T., Cuttler, C., & Swindell, S. (2020). Open educational resources as a tool for educational equity: Evidence from an introductory psychology class. Frontiers in Education. https:// www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2019.00152/full. Accessed 8 august 2022. Opencontent.org. (n.d.). Defining the “open” in open content and open educational resources. http://opencontent.org/definition. Accessed 8 August 2022. Pelletier, K., Brown, M., Brooks, D.  C., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., & Arbino, N. (2021). EDUCAUSE horizon report: Teaching and learning edition. https://library.educause.edu/-­/ media/files/library/2021/4/2021hrteachinglearning.pdf?la=en&hash=C9DEC12398593F297 CC634409DFF4B8C5A60B36E. Accessed 14 September 2021. Pomerantz, J. (2018). Learning in three dimensions: Report on the EDUCAUSE/HP campus of the future project. Educause. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2018/8/learning-­ in-­three-­dimensions-­report-­on-­the-­educause-­hp-­campus-­of-­the-­future-­project. Accessed 5 August 2022. Rhine, S., & Bailey, M. (2005). Integrated technologies, innovative learning: Insights from the PT3 program. ISTE Publications. Riedel, C., Essa, A., & Bowen, K. (2017). 7 things you should know about artificial intelligence in teaching and learning. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2017/4/7-­things-­you-­should-­ know-­about-­artificial-­intelligence-­in-­teaching-­and-­learning. Accessed 27 July 2022. Schaffhauser, D. (2020). Survey: Interactive, in-class engagement makes a difference to students. Campus Technology. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2020/11/16/survey-­interactive-­in-­ class-­engagement-­makes-­a-­difference-­to-­students.aspx. Accessed 27 July 2022. Seaman, J. E., & Seaman, J. (2020). Digital texts in the time of COVID: Educational resources in U.S. higher education, 2020. https://www.bayviewanalytics.com/reports/digitaltextsinthetimeofcovid.pdf. Accessed 8 August 2020. Shah, D. (2020). The second year of the MOOC: 2020 saw a rush to large-scale online courses. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2020-­12-­23-­the-­second-­year-­of-­the-­mooc-­2020-­ saw-­a-­rush-­to-­large-­scale-­online-­courses. Accessed 26 July 2022. Smalley, S. (2022). A data collection project at GW leads to privacy questions. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/02/22/gw-­data-­collection-­effort-­sparks-­campus-­ privacy-­concerns. Accessed 3 August 2022. The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2022). Diving into data to improve teaching: How two colleges are using classroom analytics to help faculty members succeed. https://connect.chronicle.

184

9  Learning Technologies in Higher Education

com/rs/931-­EKA-­218/images/StudentDataFacultySuccess_Ascendium_CaseStudy_v3.pdf. Accessed 2 August 2022. U.S.  Department of Education. (2005). Education in the United States: A brief overview, Washington, D.C., 2005. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/edus/index. html. Accessed 26 January 2022. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2016). Advancing educational technology in teacher preparation: Policy brief. https://tech.ed.gov/files/2016/12/Ed-­Tech-­in-­ Teacher-­Preparation-­Brief.pdf. Accessed 26 January 2021. umdearborn.edu. (n.d.) Active learning classroom. University of Michigan-Dearborn. https:// library.umd.umich.edu/services/alc.php. Accessed 25 July 2022. University of Michigan-Dearborn. (n.d.). Types of online and hybrid courses. https://umdearborn. edu/faculty-­staff/faculty-­senate/committees-­membership/university-­curriculum-­and-­degree-­ committee/ucdc-­procedures-­online-­learning-­policiesdefinitions. Accessed 7 October 2020. Wagner, E., Barr, A., Blake-Plock, S., & Robson, R. (2018). 7 things you should know about learning engineering. Educause. https://library.educause.edu/resources/2018/9/7-­things-­you-­ should-­know-­about-­learning-­engineering. Accessed 3 August 2022. Wiley, D. (n.d.). Open content. In David Wiley (Ed). An open education reader. https://openedreader.org/chapter/open-­content. Accessed 8 August 2022. Young, J.  R. (2021a). What if free online courses weren’t inside “walled gardens”? EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-­11-­09-­what-­if-­free-­online-­courses-­weren-­t-­inside-­ walled-­gardens. Accessed 26 July 2022. Young, J. R. (2021b). 2U buys edX for $800M, in surprise end to nonprofit MOOC provider started by MIT and Harvard. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-­06-­29-­2u-­buys-­edx-­for-­800m-­in-­ surprise-­end-­to-­nonprofit-­mooc-­provider-­started-­by-­mit-­and-­harvard. Accessed 26 July 2022. Zalaznick, M (2020). 4 ways learning analytics lead to equity in higher ed. University Business. https://universitybusiness.com/equity-­learning-­analytics-­college-­access-­outcomes. Accessed 2 August 2022. Zone, E., & Johnson, C. (2016). Want adaptive learning to work? Encourage adaptive teaching. Here’s how. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2016-­09-­23-­want-­adaptive-­learning-­to-­ work-­encourage-­adaptive-­teaching-­here-­s-­how. Accessed 20 July 2022.

Chapter 10

Learning Technologies and Educational Administration

Guiding digital age learning.

10.1 Introduction In the U.S., educational administrators such as superintendents, program directors, and school principals play a critical role in determining how well technology is integrated into the school systems. Recognizing this pivotal role, the technology standards for school administrators were first developed in 2001 by the Collaborative for Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA Collaborative, 2001). The message from the TSSA Collaborative Chairperson, James Bosco, highlighted that the technology standards for school administrators were an attempt to enable educators to not only acknowledge the importance of administrators in technology initiatives but also further define the specifics of what administrators need to know and be able to do to effectively use technology in their schools. Bosco also pointed out that the technology standards for administrators aligned with and complemented another critical work conducted by the International Society for Technology and Education (ISTE) in the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) projects, which developed the educational technology standards for teachers and students. The first series of technology standards for school leaders included the following categories: Leadership and Vision, Learning and Teaching, Productivity and Professional Practice, Support, Management, and Operations, Assessment and Evaluation, and Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues (TSSA Collaborative, 2001, p. 6–7). Each category discussed specific roles for administrative positions such as superintendent and executive cabinet, district-level leaders for content-specific programs, and school-level leaders, including principals and assistant principals. The TSSA Collaborative report ended with three technology-proficient school administrative scenarios for varying executive roles.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Duran, Learning Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18111-5_10

185

186

10  Learning Technologies and Educational Administration

Eight years after the TSSA Collaborative (2001) publication, ISTE released a new version of the technology standards for administrators in 2009, commonly known as the ISTE Standards for Administrators (ISTE, 2009). This second edition of standards included the following categories concerning what school and district leaders should know and how to effectively use learning technologies in education: Visionary Leadership, Digital Age Learning Culture, Excellence in Professional Practice, Systematic Improvement, and Digital Citizenship. Following the publication of the standards for administrators, ISTE also published a profile booklet in 2012 where job-specific requirements were discussed for four different administrative roles–superintendent and executive cabinet, district-level program directors, district-level technology directors, and principals–to serve as influential technology leaders (ISTE, 2012). In 2018, the latest technology standards for administrators were published under the title of ISTE Standards for Education Leaders (ISTE, 2018). In this refreshed version of the standards, education leaders were provided a framework for guiding digital learning to implement the ISTE Standards for Students (ISTE, 2016) and the ISTE Standards for Educators (ISTE, 2017). The standard focused on the following categories: Equity and Citizenship Advocate, Visionary Planner, Empowering Leader, System Designer, and Connected Learner. Throughout its progression, TSSA and ISTE standards for administrators have become the de facto national standards in the U.S. This chapter discusses common expectations from tech-savvy school administrators highlighted in TSSA and ISTE technology standards. Next, the chapter brings examples concerning practical applications of the standards. Finally, the chapter concludes by describing the most current trends and issues and the implications for policy and practices. The discussion provided in this chapter applied three primary resources. First, the author conducted an extensive literature review on the chapter’s central focus— learning technologies and educational administration–through multiple databases, journals, and web resources. Second, the writer’s reflections on over 20  years of professional teaching and research experiences at a comprehensive research university in the U.S. confirm the discussion presented in the chapter. Significant published scholarship regarding technology integration in teacher preparation programs and trends and issues pertinent to educational technology further augments this expert perspective. And third, the observations and viewpoints of participants in a graduate-level online course called Technology for Administrators enrich the chapter’s discussion. This course focuses on the role of educational administrators in school technology applications, covering varying topics and issues, such as policy development, student management, financial planning, curricular integration and evaluation, and professional development (University of Michigan-Dearborn, n.d.). The course requires weekly readings and discussions, culminating in developing a personal and professional growth plan addressing the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards for Administrators. The author regularly teaches and collects data from this course. The vital viewpoint of practicing teachers and school administrators who take the course offers the perspective from the field

10.3  Visionary Leadership

187

as they experience the critical developments in learning technologies and educational administration in their schools and their practice within them.

10.2 Purpose of the Chapter As learning technologies play a “mission-critical role” in schools, technology competencies for the district, building, and program executives also become mission-­ critical (Johnson, n.d.). The author further argued that instead of considering technology as just “another problem on the list, administrators must harness it as a powerful ally.” However, this will require administrators to purposely and continuously improve their technology skills to lead with technology. Comprehending what a tech-savvy administrator looks like compromises the critical first step in becoming an effective technology leader. Thus, the chapter first provided an overview of the technology standards developed for school leaders. This way, the writer aims to inform education leaders about the specifics of what is expected from them as effective technology leaders. It is equally important to understand the practical application of the technology standards and what tech-savvy administrators should demonstrate in their daily practice. Thus, using ISTE Standards for Administrators as a conceptual framework, the present chapter highlights a road map for a self-assessment and personal, professional growth plan to become a technology-proficient school administrator. In this direction, the chapter presents the following discussions: Visionary Leadership, Digital Age Learning Culture, Excellence in Professional Practice, Systemic Improvement, and Promoting Digital Citizenship. In addition, Appendix A gives an example of an envisioned personal, professional growth plan in the form of a term paper written by one of the future administrators who took the Technology for Administrator course in 2020. Finally, the chapter addresses current trends and issues related to leading and guiding digital age learning and discusses their implications for policy and practices. This way, educational administrators should better understand the potential and challenges of serving as influential technology leaders.

10.3 Visionary Leadership In educational administration, setting a vision is considered to be one of the most critical components of educational leadership (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). The authors further discussed that a school’s focus could be determined by looking at the set vision and its practice. Westley and Mintzberg (1989) argued that vision presents a capacity for “imagination, inspiration, insight, foresight, sagacity” (p. 22). When technology integration is considered, a visionary school administrator is expected to develop and adopt a shared vision by engaging a broad scope of

188

10  Learning Technologies and Educational Administration

stakeholders, including teachers, staff, parents and students, education experts, business leaders, and others whose involvement contributes to a successful outcome (ISTE, 2009, 2018 and TSSA Collaborative, 2001). In the context of technology integration, the latest ISTE Standards for Education Leaders defined the shared vision as working together for a common purpose and vision for the future to imagine all the potentials that technologies have to transform instruction (ISTE, 2018). The standards further elaborated and highlighted that in addition to inspiring a shared vision, developing a strategic plan, implementing an ongoing evaluation cycle informed by the learning sciences, and becoming an advocate for technology initiatives are indicators of visionary leadership. There are specific actions that can be taken by the school administrators who are working on becoming visionary technology leaders. Among others, work on establishing school technology plans and modeling and advocacy for technology initiatives on local, state, and national levels are two critical indicators. Therefore, the following section presents further discussions on these two essential activities.

10.3.1 School Technology Plans Larson et al. (2010) argued that without a specific strategic plan, educational institutions “remain awash in an ocean of ideas, losing valuable time while staff members haphazardly organize themselves” (p. 13). Similarly, all three versions of the technology standards for administrators (ISTE, 2009; ISTE, 2018 and TSSA Collaborative, 2001) recognized that building on the shared vision, a technology plan needs to be developed to articulate how technology will be used to enhance school operation. The standards also recognized that technology planning is collaborative, ongoing, and systematic. In the U.S., technology plans are prepared at the national, state, district, and school levels. At the federal and state levels, technology plans are considered a policy document that sets a vision for the education technology initiatives (e.g., Michigan Department of Education, 2017; U.S Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, 2017). District and school-level technology plans are typically tailored to the school’s specific needs and student population (e.g., Detroit Public School Community District, n.d.; Leverett Elementary School, n.d.). The literature provided guidelines on developing school technology plans, such as institutional strategy, technology accessibility, curriculum integration, professional development, and continuous improvement (Gonser, 2020; Leverett Elementary School, n.d.; Mathes, 2020; and Richardson et al., 2013; U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, n.d.. Therefore, strategic planning for school technology allows educational leaders to expand their visionary leadership.

10.3  Visionary Leadership

189

10.3.2 Modeling and Advocacy Daly et al. (2019) argued that, as presented in most leadership research, the behaviors or attributes of a leader matter for varying outcomes. Aligned with this notion, in addition to strategic planning, modeling best practices and advocacy for technology initiatives present themselves as critical indicators that visionary technology leaders should present (Thompson, 2021). Similarly, interviewing multiple school personnel and technology consultants, Starr (2009) pointed out that the most effective way educational leaders promote technology is through more modeling and advocacy because they play a crucial role in setting the climate for their schools. Further, the author highlighted that modeling by the school leadership helps those teachers who are hesitant to integrate technology in the classroom to come on board. Therefore, as one particular participant in Starr’s interview stressed, “administrators need to model, model, model.” Multiple other participants in the interview pointed out some of the practical applications of administrative modeling of technology use, including but not limited to using digital media to compose and send out meeting minutes, schedule changes, and related memos to staff; broadcasting school news over school cable systems; technology-based attendance records, grading, and reporting; and utilizing school websites to feature administrators presenting statements on the school and its mission and related highlights or upcoming events. Visionary education leaders should also advocate for technology initiatives at their schools and at the state and national levels. At the school level, some of these activities would include supporting and encouraging teachers to attend technology conferences and participate in professional development activities, providing incentives to persuade teachers to use technology in the classroom regularly, and establishing mentoring systems, so teachers have set people to go to when needing help or ideas (Starr, 2009). The author further argued that administrators could present advocacy by making particular decisions with the budget and personnel that ensure the good working order of the school’s technology operations. At the district, state, and national levels, advocating for implementing technology plans and policies, supporting funding opportunities, and sharing experiences, such as any challenges or successful practices with other education executives indicate visionary leadership skills. In sum, visionary leadership seems the first course of action for education leaders to promote technology integration in their schools. In doing so, as Richardson et al. (2013) argued, successful leaders should “inspire a shared vision for the comprehensive integration of technology while fostering an environment and culture conducive to the realization of that vision” (p. 148). School technology plans are considered one of the best vehicles to articulate and communicate the technology vision with all stakeholders. In addition, modeling and advocacy for technology initiatives provide other avenues for visionary technology leaders to present that they are invested in leading and navigating technology-rich learning environments.

190

10  Learning Technologies and Educational Administration

10.4 Digital Age Learning Culture School culture could be considered a natural extension of an established vision. In other words, once a shared vision is developed for technology integration, a school culture needs to be embodied and modeled among the school community. Turan and Bektas (2013) argued that education leaders could utilize school culture to establish buy-in and coordination among stakeholders. In the context of technology integration, the envisioned digital age learning culture is described and highlighted in all published technology standards for administrators. For example, TSSA Collaborative (2001) emphasized the necessity of specific curricular designs, strategies for instruction, and learning environments in order to establish digital age learning cultures. The “digital age learning culture” language was directly used in ISTE Standards for Administrators (ISTE, 2009) where administrators are encouraged to develop, advance, and maintain an effective learning culture that offers a technology-enriched learning environment. In the latest ISTE Standards for Education Leaders (ISTE, 2018), education leaders are charged with creating a culture where instructors and learners both feel empowered to use technology in dynamic and innovative ways to enhance the instructional process. Considering practical applications, one would argue that two critical indicators of observing digital age learning culture in a school setting are (a) available technology and learning resources and (b) innovative use of such resources in the classroom. The following section provides further discussions on these indicators.

10.4.1 Technology and Learning Resources Creating a digital age learning culture in educational organizations, especially in schools, is the first contingent on the existence and cohesiveness of the technology and learning resources at hand, in which teachers and learners feel empowered to use the available tools. In this context, the leadership role of school administrators is essential to making budgetary and staffing decisions that ensure the school’s technology infrastructure is up-to-date and in good working condition (Starr, 2009). Access to technology and connectivity is essential in order to partake in authentic and productive learning opportunities. In this direction, ISTE (2018) underlined multiple conditions such as leadership and advocacy for equitable and adequate access to high-speed Internet and online resources at school, home, and shared spaces. ISTE also pointed out that arranging such conditions typically requires setting policies, making funding available, and developing partnerships and collaborations. Equally important are implementing procedures, setting financial priorities that allow for continuous improvements in utilized technologies and technology systems, and supporting technology replacement cycles (TSSA Collaborative, 2001). In addition, educational leaders must ensure that all students have

10.5  Excellence in Professional Practice

191

technology-proficient teachers who effectively integrate technology into instruction to address students’ learning needs. Therefore, ISTE (2018) emphasized that hiring tech-savvy teachers or improving their skill levels through professional development and support is necessary to address the technology usage and access gap.

10.4.2 Innovations in Pedagogy Even though availability and access tend to be the initial emphasis, effective technology integration goes well beyond the attainment of technology. As Richardson et al. (2013) argued, integrating technology into the curriculum pedagogically sound to enhance student learning requires more than accessing hardware and software. Similarly, Mishra and Koehler (2006) stated a tendency to focus on digital tools instead of how they are used in teaching and learning. The author emphasized that “merely introducing technology to the educational process is not enough” (p. 1018). Citing Kurt Lewin’s famously noted phrase, “nothing is so practical as a good theory,” Bates (2020) argued that entering new situations blindly and moving forward with trial and error could be risky and inefficient without theory or hypothesis. The author highlighted that theory could help evade mistakes, and the practical application of a good idea can be invaluable. Aligned with this notion, the literature on technology integration provides multiple conceptual frameworks that could be used as a foundation while schools develop a digital-age learning culture. The Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model developed by Puentedura (2006) and the Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework introduced by Mishra and Koehler (2006) are the most commonly adopted frameworks when innovation in pedagogies is considered for technology use. It is important to note that neither framework is meant to exclude the other, as both serve to guide educators in the direction of integrating technology within their pedagogy and practice. Chap. 2, Section 2.4. provides more discussions about the SAMR and TPACK frameworks. In sum, at the heart of developing digital age learning cultures lies the readily available technology learning resources and pedagogically sound use. In this attempt, the SAMR and TPACK frameworks provide the necessary conceptual understanding for schools to put in place where technology integration is considered a carefully planned, purposeful, and engaging process.

10.5 Excellence in Professional Practice Education is an ever-evolving field. Therefore, instructional approaches need to adjust and transform with the changing needs of students and the changing expectations of society. As one of the students who took the Technology for Administrators course in 2019 put it best:

192

10  Learning Technologies and Educational Administration

Similar to how we do not throw content at students and expect them to learn it on their own, we cannot just inform teachers that they need to change their practice without giving them the training and the tools to make these changes successfully and meaningfully.

Aligned with the reflections above, continuous professional learning is emphasized in all three sets of technology standards published (ISTE, 2009; ISTE, 2018 and TSSA Collaborative, 2001). In particular, Technology Standards for School Administrators (TSSA Collaborative, 2001) pointed out that educational leaders assess teachers’ technology competencies and use the results to facilitate quality professional development. Likewise, ISTE Standards for Administrators (ISTE, 2009) encouraged school administrators to allocate time and resources for teachers to access ongoing professional growth in technology fluency and integration. In addition, this second version of standards emphasized participation in learning communities and collaboration as a means for professional development. Finally, the latest ISTE Standards for Education Leaders (ISTE, 2018) focused on seeing school administrators as “empowering leaders” who promote the personalized professional development of teachers to build confidence and competence to put the ISTE Standards for Students (ISTE, 2016) and ISTE Standards for Educators (2017) into practice. Among others, two critical indicators seem to present the state of excellence in professional practice in a school setting: (a) offering research-based professional development and (b) promoting learning communities and collaboration. The following section presents further discussions on these two indicators.

10.5.1 Research-Based Professional Development Providing opportunities for high-quality professional development is essential to the work of administrators. While professional development programs vary in their content and format, the goal of administrators in most cases is to facilitate improvement in teachers’ instructional practices, their attitudes and beliefs, and students’ learning outcomes (Guskey, 2002). Despite professional development programs being central to the school culture, the reviews of professional development research consistently point out the ineffectiveness of traditional methods such as one-time workshops or how-to training sessions (Borko, 2004; Brooks & Gibson, 2012; Duran et al., 2012; Fullan, 2006; Guskey, 2002 and Klein, 2021). It appears that multiple factors are contributing to the ineffectiveness. In this direction, Guskey (2002) noted the failure to account for what motivates instructors to actively take part in professional development and how a change in teachers typically occurs. Providing a conceptual model regarding professional development and teacher change, Guskey argued that sustaining new initiatives and teacher change seem to follow a sequential order starting from (1) professional development, (2) change in teacher’s classroom practices, (3) change in student learning outcomes, and (4) change in teachers’ beliefs and attitudes

10.5  Excellence in Professional Practice

193

(p.  383). Guskey’s model highlighted that teachers’ beliefs and attitudes change only when student learning outcomes have changed. Borko (2004) added to Guskey’s discussion, highlighting that many professional development programs do not consider what we know about how teachers and adults learn. In the context of technology integration, another research track has investigated how specific properties of professional development are linked to teacher learning and classroom practices (Brooks & Gibson, 2012; Duran et al., 2012; Mouza, 2009; North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, NCREL, 2000). Identified as “research-based” professional development strategies, these studies highlighted multiple critical elements in offering effective professional development activities, such as connection to student learning, curriculum-specific applications, ongoing process, and sufficient time and resources. In particular, Duran et  al. (2012) and Mouza (2009) highlighted that professional development activities that are sustained, student-centered, participatory, and reinforced by adequate resources have the potential to bring about the kinds of changes that Guskey (2002) mentioned– sustained improvements in teachers’ instructional technology knowledge, capability to design and introduce technology-enhanced learning experiences for students, and positive attitudes toward teaching and learning with technology.

10.5.2 Professional Learning Communities As technology overcomes networking barriers and opportunities for personalized learning, professional learning communities (PLCs) become critical to stimulating the digital age learning culture. Therefore, school leaders should promote participation in learning communities that foster innovation, creativity, and collaboration. Ferlazzo (2021) described that in representing a collective learning team, a “professional learning community” describes when groups of educators meet in some capacity to share thoughts and ideas in their interest areas. As a well-researched topic, professional learning communities have been considered a critical part of the school culture, providing productive spaces for teachers to learn from and share their experiences with their colleagues (Brooks & Gibson, 2012). Ferlazzo argued that it is crucial to comprehend that a PLC is not a typical teacher or grade level department meeting. Instead, PLC is a learning environment that welcomes individuals with a shared vision dedicated to ongoing progress over time. Seashore et al. (2003) further argued that PLC involves more than a practice of teachers sharing with one another but rather serves to develop an institution-wide culture in which inclusive, genuine, ongoing collaboration is expected to improve student outcomes. A PLC may include members with similar responsibilities at the school or district level, such as teachers from the same grade level or subject areas. Another type of PLC might consist of educators from the regional districts focusing on a broad range of issues in the county or state. A PLC can also be organized by way of participation in educational associations or other professional organizations. Advanced

194

10  Learning Technologies and Educational Administration

technology tools have also presented varying opportunities for educators to make connections nationwide and worldwide. Social media like Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and hashtags related to education bring many PLC opportunities and provide features to support professional learning communities. In addition, video-­ conferencing apps like Zoom and Skype allow virtual connections. As Stoll et al. (2006) asserted, this networked PLC offers the opportunity for more developed cooperation between and among schools and nearby communities, where the meaning of community is being extended and reimagined. In sum, the digital age learning culture becomes more apparent in schools, where research-based professional development and PLCs are part of regular practice. In such a supportive environment, it is possible to bring an ongoing journey of collaboration, development, and improvement for educators.

10.6 Systemic Improvement The world of education is quite complex, with multiple factors affecting the same variable at any given time. Therefore, education leaders need to address these factors in an organized, purposeful, and planned way. It is equally important to place an ongoing improvement cycle instead of a one-time effort. In other words, as Halverson et al. (2007) argued, the new instructional leadership requires knowledge and frameworks to guide them in making data-informed decisions that systematically improve their schools, thus, impacting student learning outcomes. The authors further argue that data-informed decision-making is only effective if it is supported by the necessary organizational capacities that support teachers and leaders in their efforts to change instructional practices in the face of new information. In doing so, the author pointed out that the school administrators should move toward connecting teaching and leadership, teacher partnership, professional learning aligned with educational goals, and evaluating instructional outcomes. The role of technology and media-reach resources in support of data collection and analysis has been recognized from the early years of technology infusion into the schools and highlighted in all three sets of the technology standards for administrators (ISTE, 2009; ISTE, 2018 and TSSA Collaborative, 2001). Both versions of the ISTE standards emphasized establishing and maintaining robust infrastructure and systems to encourage and support school management, operations, and instruction. Another emphasis urged collaboration and partnership among the stakeholders to make a purposeful change to augment learning goal achievements. In addition, the latest set of standards included language related to emerging issues of protecting the privacy and security of the collected data. To achieve the systematic improvement discussed above, education leaders should utilize two particular tools, student information systems (SIS) and learning management systems (LMS). Therefore, the following section presents further discussions on the use of SIS and LMS in school and school districts.

10.6  Systemic Improvement

195

10.6.1 Student Information Systems A student information system (SIS), which is also commonly referred to as a student management system is an information management system for educational organizations to manage student data. As SIS’s strategic importance grows, more school districts in the U.S. implement SIS. As of the 2006–2007 school year, nearly all school districts in the U.S. maintained at least some student data electronically (Gallagher et al., 2008). An example of SIS products used in U.S. schools includes ChidPlus, mainly used by Head Start programs (ChildPlus, n.d.). Another example is PowerSchool, a cloud-based product for K-12 education (PowerSchool, n.d.). FACTS is similar to PowerSchool but mainly used by private K-12 institutions (FACTS, n.d.). For a district-wide SIS use, MISTAR provides an example, which serves Wayne County in the State of Michigan (Wayne RESA, n.d.) As an integrated software package, SIS provides users with many different functions, such as storing recent and chronological data, managing and analyzing available information, and generating reports. Commonly used applications include keeping student demographics, course registrations, attendance, schedule, and grading. Other applications include medical records, academic transcripts and records of co-curricular activities, student assessment results, establishing parent and student connections, generating reports, and the management of other data related to students. Based on a national survey, Means et al. (2009) reported that through the use of an SIS, participating schools said the following usage data: attendance (94%), grades (91%), student demographics (90%), some administrative data including education information for special needs students (89%), and course enrollment histories (86%). Ngoma (2009) argued that educational institutions mainly use an SIS to foster student success and provide relevant services regardless of its content. In this direction, an SIS assists school executives in conducting data analysis to evaluate education stakeholders’ current and future needs. In other words, SIS help develop the institutional capacity of school leaders to improve student success through systematic data collection and analysis (Halverson et  al., 2007). Recent initiatives also target interoperability among varying SISs to ensure that information is readily available to teachers and parents to support all students (ISTE, 2021). The ISTE report pointed out that educators are increasingly concerned about fragmented school data systems. The report also highlighted that data and technology infrastructure functions across the country had been well recognized as a foundational component of schooling. Still, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a more explicit understanding of how necessary it is that technology functions are appropriately integrated. Ngoma (2009) argued that despite this increase in the use of SIS, research on why and how the use of SIS is effective in K-12 education remains limited. The author elaborated that at this point in time, school districts that have not yet implemented an SIS need to do so; not having one is simply no longer an option. However, Ngoma emphasized that while it is important to make SIS available, it is further

196

10  Learning Technologies and Educational Administration

critical to guarantee its efficiency and effectiveness in improving student learning. The author concluded that it is not about storing student data but recognizing the affordances an SIS provides to analyze the collected data to make informed educational decisions. Further, the author emphasized that the quality of an SIS, such as interactivity, user-friendliness, and data visualization, contributes to the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. Otherwise, SIS becomes challenging to access, use, and interpret data, thus creating hindrances. Data security is another concern, as schools and school districts store any sensitive personal information through SIS, making them potential targets for security breaches. For instance, in the past 2 years alone, multiple school districts in the U.S have experienced major cyberattacks, leading to the cancellation of classes for thousands of students (Attanasio, 2021). The author reported that teachers were locked out of the SIS that tracks attendance, emergency contacts, and other sensitive information for students in a particular case. Similarly, Levin (2021) reported that experiencing an 18% incident increase over a year, 2020 was a “record-breaking” year in K-12 education in the U.S. concerning cybersecurity bridges as schools respond to the COVID-19 pandemic through grown hybrid and online offerings. To establish safer and more actionable student data for schools in the U.S., ISTE (2021) recognized security and privacy issues as a top priority.

10.6.2 Learning Management Systems Particularly since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, supporting the continuation of teaching and learning has become one of the most critical emerging challenges for school leaders. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, n.d.) monitoring worldwide distribution reported that 50% of students had faced partial or complete school closures. As a result, over 100 million additional children are expected to experience learning loss falling below the minimum proficiency level in reading. The need for massive transformation towards online and hybrid education as the pandemic disturbed school-based learning necessitated the use of learning management systems (LMS) in most schools in the U.S. LMS is a web-based application package mainly used to deliver instructional courses. Still, it is also utilized for training or development programs (Ellis, 2009). Even though LMS use has been in place since the late 1990s (Davis et al., 2009), remote learning requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic brought a massive growth in usage in the last 2 years. Currently, varying use of LMS is available in U.S. K-12 schools. For example, Google Classroom (classroom.google.com), Edmodo (edmodo.com), Moodle (moodle.org), and Schoology (schoology.com) are among many other platforms that provide distance learning solutions. Most of these LMS are free of charge and have reached a solid user base. Generally used in higher education, Canvas (instructure.com) and Blackboard (blackboard.com) were two other LMS applications but typically required service fees.

10.7  Promoting Digital Citizenship

197

School leaders should seize the opportunity and consider LMS adoption of teachers during the pandemic as a regular, ongoing teaching practice to continue. In addition to bringing digital space to the teaching and learning process and allowing continuity in education through online learning, LMS provides opportunities for other systematic improvements. Artificial intelligence-driven modern LMS platforms and learning analytics applications would play a significant role in monitoring student progress and performance, creating increased student engagement, and allowing personalized learning (Paradiso, n.d.); thus, providing opportunities for systematic improvement of instruction. In sum, data-informed decision-making has been an essential component of school leadership, as they systematically strive to improve schools and districts’ teaching and learning processes. Therefore, to achieve this goal, education leaders should consider two particular tools: student information systems and learning management systems. These technology applications present potential solutions to previously considered complex challenges–setting and sustaining robust infrastructure to support school management, operations, and instruction.

10.7 Promoting Digital Citizenship Addressing the opportunities and challenges of living in a digital era has been the concern of many educational institutions. Consequently, raising a generation of students who understand the responsibilities and opportunities associated with their digital lifestyle has become a priority for schools as they integrate more advanced technologies into their daily operations. “Digital citizenship” emerged as a new concept as educators started navigating the social interactions students present in cyberspace. Using technology appropriately could be the simplest form of describing digital citizenship (Ribble et al., 2004). Later, Ribble (2017) expanded the definition and highlighted that “digital citizenship is the continuously developing norms of appropriate, responsible, and empowered technology use.” Similarly, ISTE Standards for Students (2016) explained that students who are digital citizens “recognize the rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of living, learning and working in an interconnected digital world, and they act and model in ways that are safe, legal, and ethical.” See Chap. 5 for a detailed discussion about digital citizenship. Technology standards for administrators highlighted the expectations from education leaders to promote digital citizenship. For instance, TSSA Collaborative (2001) and ISTE (2009) pointed out that school leaders should understand their responsibilities concerning social, ethical, and legal issues within the ever-evolving digital culture. The latest standards added to these early expectations and charged the education leaders to establish policies to “increase equity, inclusion, and digital citizenship practices” (ISTE, 2018). The latest standards further highlighted that school administrators should consider themselves social change agents who engage in “civil discourse using digital tools to contribute to positive social change.”

198

10  Learning Technologies and Educational Administration

The following section provides a discussion on the equity, inclusion, and digital citizenship practices that education leaders should focus on and the positive social change contributions they consider.

10.7.1 Equity, Inclusion, and Digital Citizenship Practices Education leaders should ensure that their schools and districts have a strategic plan to affirm equity, inclusion, and digital citizenship practices (ISTE, 2009; TSSA Collaborative, 2001). School administrators should confirm that students can access digital tools and connectivity, including adaptive and assistive technologies, to participate in authentic and engaging educational activities. Particularly important to ensure equitable access to appropriate technologies. Finally, education leaders ensure that all students have technology-proficient teachers, which is critical to closing the digital divide. Another critical factor for digital citizenship practices is developing policies and procedures for safe, legal, and ethical use of digital technologies and identifying responsibilities concerning the digital culture (ISTE, 2018). To achieve this goal, acceptable use policies should be readily available, including guidelines about the legal and ethical use of technology and online resources. In addition, focusing on fair use, netiquette, and cyberbullying becomes a critical indicator for digital citizenship practices.

10.7.2 Contributing to Positive Social Change School administrators should promote and model responsible social interactions related to digital technology use (ISTE, 2018). Modeling and facilitating the development of a shared culture and understanding and involvement in pressing global issues via information and communication technologies are crucial components for education leaders. They can enable school-wide and cross-cultural projects focused on global issues to achieve this goal. In addition, they can engage in civil discourse in the context of curricular goals and objectives.

10.8 Current Trends in Guiding Digital Age Learning Given the historical context and recent developments, the following current trends will continue to capture attention in guiding digital age learning: Revisions in technology standards for administrators with the raised bar and “informal” leadership roles in school technology implementations.

10.8  Current Trends in Guiding Digital Age Learning

199

10.8.1 Raising the Bar for School Administrators Initially released in 2001 and revised in 2009 and 2018, technology standards for administrators defined the responsibilities of education leaders as they implement technology initiatives in their schools and school districts (ISTE, 2009; ISTE, 2018; TSSA Collaborative, 2001). Knezek (2012) argued that the refreshed standards for administrators in 2009 raised the bar for education leaders to lead and sustain a school culture that supports digital age learning. In addition, rapid technological advances required them to become comfortable, collaborating, and co-learners with their colleagues and students. Another critical understanding for school administrators, Knezek argued, was that school leaders not only follow the digital learning culture but also stay ahead and move forward as members of engaged learning communities. Therefore, the author pointed out that education leaders must convey a vision for learning technologies and promote the growth of their technical skills and those of others in their schools. One would argue that the bar has been raised again with the latest revisions in technology standards for education leaders (see ISTE, 2018). In addition to the expectations placed in the earlier versions, such as visionary planner, empowering leader, and system designer, the latest standard emphasized contribution to “positive social change” as an expanded role. In this direction, the standards urged school leaders to use digital collaboration tools to participate in social activities and leverage online approaches such as crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, and social entrepreneurship.

10.8.2 “Informal” Leadership Roles in Technology Implementations Daly et  al. (2019) described educational leadership broadly includes individuals who maintain formal positions like school principals and district superintendents. However, the authors noted that another set of individuals also provides more informal leadership roles in educational institutions as they offer advice and input. In addition, Daly et al. pointed out that informal leaders are instrumental in influencing opinions, guiding change implementation, and creating positive collegial environments. Therefore, the authors recommended that education leaders with formal positions develop relationships with multiple stakeholders, including informal leaders in their workplaces. Flanagan and Jacobsen (2003) highlighted that as informal leaders emerge among teachers and school staff, education leaders should act as mentors or coaches, leading to capacity building to potential technology leadership. In addition, the authors noted that informal leaders help develop ownership of the change process in the school community. Flanagan and Jacobsen concluded that this “shared technology leadership” enables collaborative processes in technology implementations.

200

10  Learning Technologies and Educational Administration

10.9 Current Issues in Guiding Digital Age Learning Multiple challenges will likely impede the efforts to guide digital age learning. Currently, school administration under COVID-19 appears to be the most crucial issue. In addition, frequent administrative turnover in educational institutions seems to present another challenge for technology initiatives. The following section provides a further discussion on these topics.

10.9.1 School Administration under COVID-19 Pandemic When finalizing this chapter in the spring of 2022, educational leaders in the U.S were still navigating the COVID-19 pandemic that they had both no prior experience dealing with nor any formal training about. Representing the feeling of many school administrators, 50 superintendents from Midwest U.S. described the situation as “chaotic,” “challenging,” “unique,” and “crazy” (Gentz & Grundmeyer, 2021). The authors further reported that the main challenges these education leaders needed to manage included students’ learning recovery, the mental health of students and teachers, and recruiting and retaining school staff. The unique part of the situation was utilizing the extra funding schools received from the federal government to manage the pandemic. Yet, the unprecedented circumstances, high stress, increased demand, and limited support staff had about half of the school principals considering leaving the profession sooner than previously planned (Gentz & Grundmeyer, 2021; Maxwell, 2020). Given the context that the COVID-19 pandemic created, a significant dilemma is facing education in the U.S. Gentz and Grundmeyer (2021) reported that some education leaders consider going back to what education was like before the pandemic. Some others, the authors noted, the pandemic was the catalyst needed to reform the education system. Leveraging the additional funding received during the pandemic, progressive school leaders set new or renewed priorities such as addressing social and emotional health, hiring teacher talents, and developing hybrid or virtual learning options. In this direction, experts urge school leaders to consider sustainability plans for learning technologies (Klein, 2022).

10.9.2 Administrative Turnover The unprecedented leadership challenge that COVID-19 presented was the further decline of a current issue. A considerable number of schools in the U.S. encounter leadership turnover. Levin et al. (2020) reported that many educational institutions in the U.S. do not have stable leadership, mainly caused to difficult working conditions, limited staff support, and lack of professional development. The authors further reported that nationwide the average tenure of a school principal is about

10.10 Conclusion

201

4  years, and almost one in five principals (about 18%) turn over yearly. Further, Levin et al. noted that the turnover rate was even higher at those schools that need the most capable administrators, those serving students from low-income families. In addition, Maxwell (2020) argued that preparing and hiring new leaders every so often distress districts and states’ financial resources in large amounts. Freeman et al. (2017) argued that frequent leadership vacancies and transitions in educational institutions present a “wicked challenge” for emerging technology implementations. The authors argued that the effective implementation of innovative technologies requires investment in multiple areas, including funding, time, and personnel. Turnover in the leadership of educational institutions can result in project delays and hinder important initiatives. In most cases, sustaining innovation through leadership changes becomes challenging. Therefore, the author recommended that schools determine plans for ongoing progress on technology initiatives, given the reality of high turnover in school leadership.

10.10 Conclusion Leadership research highlighted that the qualities of educational leaders impact educational outcomes (Daly et al., 2019). Similarly, in the context of learning technologies, administrators can shape technology initiatives in their schools (Thompson, 2021). Therefore, the discussions addressed in this chapter examined guiding digital age learning and provided a road map for a personal, professional growth plan in technology leadership. Three sets of technology standards for administrators published in the last two decades described the responsibilities of education leaders as they consider technology initiatives in their institutions (see ISTE, 2009; ISTE, 2018 and TSSA Collaborative, 2001). In addition, the standard highlighted the critical roles that school administrators should obtain for successful technology implementations (Knezek, 2012). The technology standard for administrators generally identified essential categories: Visionary Leadership, Digital Age Learning Culture, Excellence in Professional Practice, Systematic Improvement, and Digital Citizenship. In addition, understanding the conceptual discussions and practical applications of the technology standards was found crucial for school administrators to harness the affordances of learning technologies (Richardson et al., 2013). Setting a vision is a critical element of school leadership (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). In terms of technology integration, a visionary school leader should facilitate developing and adopting a shared vision by engaging the stakeholders (ISTE, 2009; ISTE, 2018 and TSSA Collaborative, 2001). The literature indicated that creating a strategic technology plan with an ongoing evaluation cycle and becoming an advocate for technology initiatives on local, state, and national levels are two critical indicators of visionary technology leadership. An extension of establishing a vision is the school culture. The literature highlighted the importance of school culture to develop buy-in and collaboration among

202

10  Learning Technologies and Educational Administration

stakeholders (Turan & Bektas, 2013). Therefore, educational administrators have been encouraged to create, promote, and sustain a technology-enriched learning culture in their schools or districts (ISTE, 2009; ISTE, 2018 and TSSA Collaborative, 2001). Considering practical applications, two critical indicators of observing digital age learning culture in an educational setting include readily available technology and learning resources and innovative use of those resources in the teaching and learning process. Educational institutions strive to reach excellence in professional practice in an ever-evolving field. Therefore, instructional strategies require adjustments and transformations with the changing needs of students and society. The change is evident for school technology applications, requiring continuous professional development. Therefore, educational leaders are expected to develop assessment strategies for teachers’ technology competencies and use the results to facilitate quality professional development (ISTE, 2009; ISTE, 2018 and TSSA Collaborative, 2001). Two particular indicators of “empowering leaders” were present in the literature: offering research-based professional development and promoting learning communities and collaboration. Effective educational leadership requires systematically establishing structures for data-informed decisions to improve schools and academic outcomes (Halverson et al., 2007). Therefore, administrators’ technology standards highlighted developing and sustaining robust infrastructure and systems to support school management, operations, and instruction (ISTE, 2009; ISTE, 2018 and TSSA Collaborative, 2001). To achieve this goal, education leaders should utilize two particular tools, student information systems (SIS) and learning management systems (LMS), as practical applications. As learning technologies integrated into the school’s daily operations, digital citizenship became a critical concept for schools to address. In a simple form, digital citizens use technology appropriately (Ribble et al., 2004) and understand living and learning roles and responsibilities in a digitally-connected world (ISTE Standards for Students, 2016). Therefore, technology standards for administrators highlight the expectations from education leaders to promote digital citizenship (ISTE, 2009; ISTE, 2018 and TSSA Collaborative, 2001). In this direction, the education leaders are expected to establish policies and procedures for equity, inclusion, and digital citizenship practices and consider themselves social change agents. Two particular trends would likely capture further attention in guiding digital age learning. First, the bar for education leaders to establish and sustain a school environment that supports digital age learning is higher than ever. This notion was particulate true since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, which created a renewed focus on effective school technology implementations. Moving forward, education leaders would likely need to stay ahead of the game as they support digital age learning. Second, as educational administrators lead technology initiatives, they should recognize and develop partnerships with “informal” leaders in their workplaces to drive change implementations and establish ownership among stakeholders (Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003). In most cases, this “shared technology leadership” enables collaborative processes in technology implementations, leading to

Appendix

203

successful outcomes. Yet, this particular area–informal technology leadership–presents a research gap offering opportunities for researchers. Given the historical context and current literature, multiple challenges will likely impede the efforts to guide digital age learning and have implications for policy and practice. School administration under COVID-19 has created a significant dilemma for educational leadership. Some school leaders are eager to return to the pre-­ pandemic normal (Gentz & Grundmeyer, 2021). On the other hand, the pandemic catalyzed reform efforts for some school leaders, particularly in prioritizing the need for learning technologies (Klein, 2022.) It needs to be seen which direction the U.S. schools will take during the post-pandemic era. Either way, the frequent leadership turnover issue that existed even before the pandemic would likely continue as another critical issue facing education in U.S. schools (Levin et al., 2020). Freeman et al. (2017) described this matter as a “wicked challenge” for school technology initiatives, often requiring sustained leadership.

Appendix Appendix A – Personal Professional Growth Plan Integrating Technology to Become a Better Early Childhood Administrator [Name] Introduction What comes to your mind when you think about technology? For me, it has always been related to a particular device that is used to complete a task. I’ve never considered the thought and execution needed to develop ways to integrate technology into an educational setting. Taking the time to discover through self-assessment and reflection on whether or not I have the skills to be an effective technology leader while finding ways to cultivate a rich digital age learning environment will be the primary focus of this paper. I will be using the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards for Administrators (2009) as a guide for my reflection and self-assessment. The paper will be structured in a way that follows the ISTE’s following core ideas: visionary leadership, digital age learning culture, excellence in professional practice, systemic improvement, and digital citizenship. Visionary Leadership According to the ISTE Standards for Administrators (2009), an administrator should “inspire and lead development and implementation of a shared vision for comprehensive integration of technology to promote excellence and support transformation

204

10  Learning Technologies and Educational Administration

throughout the organization.” In doing so, the standards highlight, administrators will also serve as an “advocate on local, state, and national levels for policies, programs and funding to support the implementation of a technology-infused vision and strategic plan” (ISTE, 2009). Being a visionary leader requires knowledge of technology as well as having innovation for embedding it appropriately into the program. One example of applying the visionary leadership standard is creating a technology plan. According to the Missouri Department of Education’s Six-Step Process in Creating a Technology Plan, there are five areas of expertise that are embedded within the technology focus areas: technical support, teacher preparation and instruction delivery, student learning, resource use, and distribution, and data management/communication processes/administration (Strange, 2015). Putting together a planning committee will be critical to properly developing and executing any technology plan. When selecting the members that will serve on the planning committee, I will select based on the expertise that they can offer in a wide array of areas including marketing, financial planning, needs assessment, evaluation, goal setting, curriculum and instruction, professional development, and technology hardware and support (Strange, 2015). The importance of selecting a planning committee is that we can use their expertise and work together to build an appropriate technology plan that will serve both the needs and the vision of our program. As an administrator, I will ensure that our program has a technology plan that focuses not just on the technology itself, but the applications that are available for use. Our technology plan will also be evaluated and updated annually to stay current with the needs of our program and have the ability to compare that with the technology options available for us (See, n.d.). During the COVID-19 pandemic, I feel as though I have found the initiative to become a visionary leader by learning about different avenues and platforms that were available for me to stay connected and to educate my students. In doing that, I put myself in a position to help our educational organization move forward into virtual learning by becoming a support person for other teachers as they set up their virtual classrooms. I think that I can continue my journey of visionary leadership by working to make sure that there are solid plans in place for how to integrate technology throughout my classroom in meaningful ways. As a future administrator, I can extend this into creating a plan for my teachers to integrate technology into their classrooms. I can start this process of development by verifying that I am thorough and comprehensive in my understanding of the five ISTE Standards for Administrators (2009). Even though I am not currently in a position of administration, I can begin to use these standards within my classroom and help my organization in achieving the standards. By helping to set an example that our organization as a whole is on the right track, I believe it will set the foundation for the future when I become an administrator. My previous philosophy was that children and families already had more than the average amount of daily screen time and therefore I did not want to add to that when the children were in my care. However, I am beginning to understand that there is much more involved when considering the integration of technology. As a

Appendix

205

visionary leader, I can find ways to incorporate technology appropriately that will align with the mission, philosophy, and goals of our program. Technology can help enrich my current teaching experiences by providing new and unique ways to display and develop content information for my students. Technology, when used appropriately, also serves as a quality option for staying in contact with families so that they can become partners in their child’s education. When considering my future goal of becoming a classroom coach, I can help my mentees develop those same enriching experiences for their students and families. When I eventually become a program administrator, I plan to ensure that all of our classrooms are using technology in developmentally appropriate ways and to help the members of my team; work smarter and not harder. Technology is a vessel for efficiency, and that is something I believe we can all benefit from in early childhood education. Digital Age Learning Culture By examining the ISTE Standards for Administrators (2009), it is clear that administrators should be able to develop, encourage, and maintain “a dynamic, digital-age learning culture that provides a rigorous, relevant, and engaging education for all students.” This can be achieved through setting an example and modeling the opportunities for effective use of technology as well as its integration with the curriculum. To have all stakeholders invested in such a practice, it is important that administrators “provide learner-centered environments equipped with technology and learning resources to meet the individual, diverse needs of all learners” (ISTE, 2009). Technology should be implemented from a curriculum standpoint in meaningful ways that will help to support children’s learning. Teachers often have a curriculum or content knowledge, technical knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge, but these individual knowledge pieces need to overlap with one another to best support the needs of our students. Even more important is to have the concept of “specialized, highly applied knowledge that supports content-based technology integration…technological pedagogical and content knowledge abbreviated TPCK or TPACK” (Harris & Hofer, 2009). When thinking about TPACK, it “is the intersection of teachers’ knowledge of curriculum content, general pedagogies, and technology” (Harris & Hofer, 2009). In their article Instructional Planning Activity Types as Vehicles for Curriculum-Based TPACK Development (2009), Harris and Hofer describe TPACK as being “comprised, in part, by three particular aspects of that knowledge that are represented by the other three intersections depicted” and then describe those intersections as “pedagogical content knowledge: how to teach particular content-based material, technological content knowledge: how to select and use technologies to communicate particular content knowledge, technological pedagogical knowledge: how to use particular technologies while teaching.” I think that I have a unique perspective when it comes to being a part of the digital age learning culture; I am of an age where technology has been present in my life for many years and I can easily pick up and understand the technology and its application without much initial support. I am also of an age where I have had the luxury

206

10  Learning Technologies and Educational Administration

of living my younger years without an overabundant amount of technology and therefore I feel that I can bring the perspective of finding ways to integrate technology within the curriculum in an enriching way rather than an overwhelming way. However, there is so much that I can still learn and ways that I can still grow to be an effective administrator. As a future administrator, I plan to stay current with available technology options; both the technology hardware itself as well as the applications and software. This will require me to think divergently when it comes to technology and understand that there is more to technology than computers. In addition to computers, I can formulate ways to integrate options such as digital cameras, video cameras, and audio recording devices. As an administrator, I commit to planning and conducting technology professional development options for my staff (as well as myself) before expecting them to implement something within their classroom. As I hope to become an administrator for grant funded-programs serving at-risk preschool-aged children, I feel that it is important to make sure that my staff are on board and are dedicated to fully supporting learning in the classroom by integrating technology into their daily interactions in meaningful ways. By fully integrating technology into our classrooms, we will be able to expose those at-risk children to opportunities that may not be available in their communities while also giving them new ways to approach critical thinking which will help them to become successful. Through discussions with my peers, I find that it is also important to educate our children and families in our program on the importance of meaningful uses of technology. Having families that feel supported with the learning of their children will help us to achieve our educational goals while carrying out the philosophy and mission of the program. As an administrator, I have to build this partnership in learning between what is happening in the classrooms I oversee, and what is happening with the children in their homes. Excellence in Professional Practice The third ISTE Standard for Administrators (ISTE, 2009) is centered around the idea of “excellence in professional practice.” Professional development and other training opportunities are examples of this excellence. Currently, professional development is offered through a one type fits all approach which needs to be adjusted. Just as our students cannot be expected to learn in such a way, neither can working professionals. It would be better suited to fit the needs of teachers to offer professional development opportunities that are unique to their needs and interests, and also are delivered in formats that best suit their needs. Administrators should be equipped to handle the ongoing “growth in technology fluency and integration” by dedicating both time and resources (ISTE, 2009). Administrators should also be expected to “promote and model effective communication and collaboration among stakeholders using digital tools” (ISTE, 2009). Due to the ever-changing nature of technology, administrators should plan to stay connected to information regarding “educational research and emerging trends regarding effective use of technology

Appendix

207

and encourage evaluation of new technologies for their potential to improve student learning” (ISTE, 2009). In my experience, at the beginning of each school year, school employees are required to attend certain professional development training such as bloodborne pathogens, mandated reporting, sanitation, bullying, and sexual harassment. On top of that, we attend monthly curriculum collaboration and assessment workgroup meetings. In these meetings, we work with our classroom coach to review some of our assessment data within our Teaching Strategies Gold system. During curriculum collaboration and assessment workgroup meetings we are also expected to discuss the curriculum at length and find specific ways to implement it with fidelity within the classroom. However, in the last 2 years, we have had a new coach who is unfamiliar with the curriculum and has been struggling to effectively run these monthly professional development opportunities. We currently use a newer curriculum called Connect4Learning and I was one of two pilot teachers in our area 3 years ago and as a result, I often find myself supporting my co-teachers when it comes to ideas and strategies related to the curriculum. Some additional professional development opportunities that present themselves throughout the year may include classroom management skills such as Conscious Discipline and continued health and safety training available on the MiRegistry website. It is also important in my opinion to provide professional development opportunities to the families I am working with and serving as well. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, parents and other family members were forced into becoming co-teachers for their children (with the support of their classroom teacher). In many of those situations, parents and family members were not properly prepared to handle the unique challenges presented by online learning. Involving families in professional development opportunities can prevent similar missteps from happening in the future and also ensure that families have the tools and knowledge to stay connected with their child’s progress moving forward. By offering parent workshops and community discussions, we can hope to better understand issues faced by our staff and the families from all sides and we can continue to grow and serve together. As a current teacher, I enjoy attending professional development training because I am always looking for information that I can use and transform in my classroom. In the last 10 years working in the early childhood field, I have had the opportunity to attend a wide range of training; some were delivered very effectively, while others left me wishing for the experience to end. The best experiences were the ones where the presenters made it a point to connect with the audience about how their particular information was going to affect or support us in the classroom. Engaging in meaningful discussions, asking questions, and exchanging experiences are some of the ways that I find to be the most helpful when thinking about professional development. As an administrator, I plan to be sure that I am involved with the professional development opportunities presented to my staff so that I can best support them with it. While I may not continue to teach children in the classroom, I can make certain my teachers are supported. Additionally, I plan to take input from my staff about the types of professional development that would be the most beneficial to them in

208

10  Learning Technologies and Educational Administration

supporting their personal and professional goals. While there will always be required yearly training that applies to everyone, I plan to collaborate with my teachers on an individual basis to help them reflect on their practice, set goals, and make an improvement plan. When working on their professional plans, I think it will be important to not only look at the content of professional development desired but the preferred delivery method as well. For my future teachers to receive maximum benefit from the training, I will need to have them interested and engaged which looks different for each person. Some teachers may prefer in-person delivery methods of professional development while others may prefer virtual opportunities. Another piece to my professional growth plan for my staff will be using a team-type approach and pairing teachers together to support and mentor one another. As for myself, I feel that I will always be a lifelong student. I am already looking at opportunities to grow and continue my education after obtaining my Master’s degree. I am intrigued by the volume of information available in the field of education that I have left to learn. I am also interested in the variety of ways I can best serve children and my communities, which may mean shifting my education in a new direction. As a future administrator, I feel that it will be important for me to continue to stay relevant and up to date on philosophies, trends, and ideas that will help to build my program and support the development of my team. I also feel that in doing so, I set a positive role model example for my staff. Systematic Improvement Within any educational setting, there are several data pieces and other information that are collected, stored, and analyzed for various purposes. According to the fourth ISTE Standard for Administrators (2009) which discusses systemic improvement, administrators should be able to “provide digital age leadership and management to continuously improve the organization through the effective use of information and technology resources” (ISTE, 2009). This, for instance, requires administrators to have the ability to facilitate the use of proper school management systems (SMS). This may look different depending on the specific program, but usually contain some similar key features: child information and demographics, attendance, grading, special education or other health-related information, and assessment information (Wikipedia, 2020). Administrators can share the information that is collected, analyzed, and stored within the SMS with stakeholders to “improve staff performance and student learning” (ISTE, 2009). Working in the Muskegon and Oceana County Head Start program, there are two main SMS that is used; Child Plus and Teaching Strategies Gold. ChildPlus (2019) is used to store information about the child such as their demographics, health history, educational requirements to name a few. Typically all of the information is managed by the administrators or by the classroom Family Advocate. This system allows us to track upcoming and overdue health events including immunizations, hearing and vision screenings, as well as yearly well-child visits (ChildPlus, 2019). Keeping this information organized in this way allows Head Start staff to

Appendix

209

collaborate with families to ensure the needs of the whole child are met. Currently, as a teacher, I am responsible for using Child Plus to take daily attendance at multiple points throughout the day (mealtimes), and track all of their educational information such as home visits, ASQ scores, parent-teacher conferences, and school readiness goals (ChildPlus, 2019). In addition to Child Plus, our Head Start organization uses Teaching Strategies Gold (2017) as our ongoing assessment tool. Similar to Child Plus, demographic information is stored here as well as it can be used as a filter option when running reports. Teaching Strategies Gold allows teachers to input anecdotal notes while assigning preliminary score levels. At the end of the time, all of the preliminary data scores are used to deliver a final checkpoint level that can be shared with families to help develop school readiness goals during parent-­teacher conferences (2017). As a parent, I am also somewhat familiar with an additional SMS which is PowerSchool (n.d.). This system allows me to update my child’s information and see their progress and report cards. While there are many other features available with the system, I do not have access to nor had training on how to use the functions and features associated with the system. As an administrator, I plan to utilize SMS tools that will effectively meet the needs of my staff and our program. Working in education, there is an abundance of information that needs to be stored safely and can be accessed by all stakeholders. I plan to look into options that could be all-inclusive for our purposes, eliminating the need for duplication of information across multiple systems. This may require taking the initiative to work with software developers to develop a system unique to our requirements and needs. Another important part of my professional growth plan related to systemic improvement is to dedicate time for staff and families to learn how to effectively and efficiently use the system to support their needs as well. This specific time that is dedicated to the SMS should be revisited often as systems are often updated to include additional features. Digital Citizenship Digital citizenship is the fifth and final standard from ISTE’s Standards for Administrators (2009). Digital citizenship is taking the principles of traditional citizenship such as “be kind, respectful, and responsible, and participate in activities that make the world a better place” (Fingal, 2020). An administrator has to have the skills to “model and facilitate understanding of social, ethical, and legal issues and responsibilities related to an evolving digital culture” and in doing so, administrators will be expected to “facilitate the development of a shared cultural understanding and involvement in global issues through the use of contemporary communication and collaboration tools” (ISTE, 2009). As we navigate through a world where much of our lives is encompassed by technology, this idea of digital citizenship becomes increasingly important. Practical application examples of digital citizenship include consideration for plagiarism, cyberbullying, and acceptable use policies. As more information becomes available through online platforms, the accuracy of sources must be

210

10  Learning Technologies and Educational Administration

maintained. It may seem unlikely that ideas and words have the opportunity to be stolen, but according to What is Plagiarism? which was sponsored by Turnitin (2017), “the expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions.” To avoid legal issues and to maintain academic integrity, it is important to properly cite where the information comes from. Cyberbullying is another important aspect of understanding digital citizenship. According to the Cyberbullying Research Center (2018), cyberbullying is defined as “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices.” It is important to accurately scrutinize this definition, as it may be misinterpreted. To qualify as cyberbullying, it has to be a pattern of behavior that is meant to hurt someone and not an isolated incident that accidentally hurt someone (What is cyberbullying XE "Cyberbullying" ?, 2018). In any case, we must teach our students the importance of demonstrating respectful behavior in digital correspondence. By developing acceptable use policies or contracts that stipulate the type of behavior that is expected of students when engaging in online learning, or learning with school-provided devices, schools can make their expectations clear for the students from the beginning so that there is no confusion on what appropriate behavior looks like. Boston Public Schools updated their Acceptable Use Policy to make it student-friendly and to write it in such a way that students understood that they alone were responsible for their actions and behavior (“Student-Centered Acceptable Use Policy,”, n.d.). By allowing students to feel empowered to make their own decisions and be responsible for their actions it puts them in charge of their digital citizenship. As an administrator, it is ultimately my responsibility to keep my teachers and students safe. By modeling what digital citizenship looks like and demonstrating the importance of it for our school family, I hope that it will set the tone for them to follow suit. Since I intend to be an administrator in an early childhood education setting, I will have to tailor my approach to best meets the needs of young learners. By creating posters and other infographics, I can help convey the important and positive message regarding digital citizenship. It is my personal belief that my behavior outside of school is just as important as my behavior inside within a school setting and therefore I commit to upholding the digital citizenship principles in all of my digital correspondence. As an administrator, I feel that this is important not just for myself, but for my staff as well. I plan to convey the message that they are expected to follow the principles of digital citizenship both in and out of the classroom. In doing so, we can continue to model appropriate behavior and serve as role models for our students. Not only do I plan to implement an acceptable use policy for the students, but there will also be one created for the staff as well. By creating this policy or contract, it allows me to focus matter-of-factly on the issue at hand (related to digital citizenship) and refer them back to the policy that they read, acknowledged, and signed.

References

211

Conclusion In conclusion, through the reading, analyzing, and understanding of the Standards for Administrators that was created by the ISTE (2009) I feel that I am adequately equipped to integrate technology in successful ways both as a current teacher as well as a future administrator. It has been through self-assessment and reflection of my experiences and knowledge that I feel confident in my personal and professional growth plan regarding the integration of technology. I believe that while I may not possess the necessary skills at the present moment to be an effective technology leader, I now have the resources to develop and implement my personal and professional growth plan that will take me to that effective leadership level. I am grateful for the opportunity to expand my prior knowledge in terms of technology and associate it solely with hardware, and instead of replacing it with the knowledge of applications and skills that will help me in becoming a more efficient and effective educator and future administrator.

References Attanasio, C. (2021). Cyberattack in Albuquerque latest to target public schools. AP News. https:// apnews.com/article/education-­n ew-­m exico-­a lbuquerque-­0 00a615feacd4e4d5bd0f85386 89b023. Accessed 14 Jan 2022. Bates, T. (2020). Foreword to the third edition. Cited in Beetham & Sharpe, 2020. Rethinking pedagogy for the digital age (3rd ed.). Routledge. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. Brooks, C., & Gibson, S. (2012). Professional learning in a digital age. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 38(2), 1–17. ChildPlus. (n.d.). ChildPlus software. https://childplus.com. Accessed 14 Jan 2022 Daly, A. J., Liou, Y., Del Fresno, M., Rehm, M., & Bjorklund, P. (2019). Educational leadership in the twitterverse: Social media, social networks, and the new social continuum. Teachers College Record, 121(14), 1–20. Davis, B., Carmean, C., & Wagner, E. (2009). The evolution of the LMS: From management to learning. https://www.elearningguild.com/showfile.cfm?id=3703. Accessed 16 Jan 2022 Detroit Public School Community District. (n.d.). Technology plan: Our roadmap for a connected feature (2019–2020). https://www.detroitk12.org/cms/lib/MI50000060/Centricity/ Domain/4034/Technology%20Plan%20vF.pdf. Accessed 2 Jan 2022 Duran, M., Brunvand, S., Ellsworth, J., & Şendağ, S. (2012). Impact of research-based professional development: Investigation of inservice teacher learning and practice in wiki integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(4), 331–334. Ellis, R. K. (2009). Field guide to learning management. Learning Circuits. https://home.csulb. edu/~arezaei/ETEC551/web/LMS_fieldguide_20091.pdf. Accessed 28 May 2022. FACTS. (n.d.). FACTS. https://factsmgt.com. Accessed 14 Jan 2022. Ferlazzo, L. (2021). A professional learning community is not a faculty, grade level, or department meeting. EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/opinion-­a-­professional-­ learning-­community-­is-­not-­a-­faculty-­grade-­level-­or-­department-­meeting/2021/04. Accessed 28 May 2022. Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124–142.

212

10  Learning Technologies and Educational Administration

Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., & Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/ CoSN horizon report > 2017 K-12 edition. The New Media Consortium. https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2017/11/2017hrk12EN.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2022 Fullan, M. (2006). Change theory: A force for school improvement. Center for Strategic Education. http://www.michaelfullan.ca/Articles_06/06_change_theory.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2022. Gallagher, L., Means, B., & Padilla, C. (2008). Teachers’ use of student data systems to improve instruction: 2005 to 2007. U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/ tech/teachers-­data-­use-­2005-­2007/teachers-­data-­use-­2005-­2007.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2022 Gentz, S., & Grundmeyer, T. (2021). Leveraging funds to improve schools and meet the needs of all students. https://www.techlearning.com/news/leveraging-­funds-­to-­improve-­schools-­and-­meet-­ the-­needs-­of-­all-­students. Tech & Learning. Accessed 25 May 2022. Gonser, S. (2020). How long-term tech planning pays off—Now and in the future. Edutopia. https:// www.edutopia.org/article/how-­long-­term-­tech-­planning-­pays-­now-­and-­future. Accessed 2 Jan 2022. Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 81–391. Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C. (2007). The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in school. Journal of School Leadership, 17(2), 159–194. International Society for Technology and Education (ISTE). (2012). NETS for administrators: Profiles. ISTE Publications. International Society for Technology and Education (ISTE). (2009). ISTE standards for administrators. https://cdn.iste.org/www-­root/Libraries/Images/Standards/Download/ISTE%20 Standards%20for%20Administrators%2C%202009%20(Permitted%20Educational%20Use). pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2021. International Society for Technology and Education (ISTE). (2016). ISTE standards: Students. https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-­standards-­for-­students. Accessed 30 Nov 2021. International Society for Technology and Education (ISTE). (2017). ISTE standards: Educators. https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-­standards-­for-­teachers. Accessed 30 Nov 2021. International Society for Technology and Education (ISTE). (2018). ISTE standards for education leaders. https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-­standards-­for-­education-­leaders. Accessed 30 Nov 2021. International Society for Technology and Education (ISTE). (2021). Twenty districts and three state education agencies join the initial cohort to fix pervasive data problems in schools. https:// www.iste.org/explore/press-­releases/twenty-­districts-­and-­three-­state-­education-­agencies-­join-­ initial-­cohort-­fix. Accessed 17 Jan 2022. Johnson, D. (n.d.). What does a tech-savvy administrator look like? The School Superintendents Association. https://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=8566. Accessed 16 Dec 2021 Klein, A. (2021). How to fix 7 fatal flaws in tech professional development. In EducationWeek Spotlight: Professional development for technology. EducationWeek. https://www.edweek. org/products/spotlight/spotlight-­on-­professional-­development-­for-­technology. Accessed 8 Jan 2022. Klein, A. (2022). What schools can do now to ensure their new technology lasts beyond the COVID cash boom. EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/technology/what-­schools-­can-­do-­now-­ to-­ensure-­their-­new-­technology-­lasts-­beyond-­the-­covid-­cash-­boom/2022/05. Accessed 25 May 2022 Knezek, D. (2012). Global learning in the digital age. In NETS for administrators: Profiles. ISTE Publications. Larson, L., Miller, T., & Ribble, M. (2010). 5 considerations for digital age leaders: What principals and district administrators need to know about tech integration today. Learning & Leading with Technology, 37(4), 12–15.

References

213

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research 1996–2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177–199. Leverett Elementary School. (n.d.). Technology plan (2015–2020). https://www.leverettschool. org/school_information/school_information/school_documents_and_plans/technology_plan. Accessed 2 Jan 2022. Levin, D.A. 2021. The state of K-12 cybersecurity: 2020 year in review. K12 six. https://k12cybersecure.com/year-­in-­review. Accessed 19 Jan 2022. Levin, S., Scott, C., Yang, M., Leung, M., & Bradley, K. (2020). Supporting strong, stable principal workforce: What matters and what can be done. The National Association of Secondary School Principals. https://www.nassp.org/wp-­content/uploads/2020/08/LPI-­and-­NASSP-­ Research-­Agenda-­Final-­Report.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2022 Mathes, J. (2020). The digital imperative: Planning for the fall term and beyond. Online Learning Consortium. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/the-­digital-­imperative-­planning-­for-­the-­ fall-­term-­and-­beyond. Accessed 2 Jan 2022 Maxwell, L. A. (2020). The pandemic may drive principals to quit. EducationWeek. https://www. edweek.org/leadership/the-­pandemic-­may-­drive-­principals-­to-­quit/2020/08. Accessed 25 May 2022 Means, B., Padilla, C., DeBarger, A., & Bakia, M. (2009). Implementing data-informed decision making in schools—Teacher access, supports and use. U.S. Department of Education. https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504191.pdf. Accessed 13 Jan 2022 Michigan Department of Education. (2017). MI roadmap: Transforming education through technology. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Item_A_Technology_Plan_553854_7.pdf. Accessed 2 Jan 2022. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Mouza, C. (2009). Does research-based professional development make a difference? A longitudinal investigation of teacher learning in technology integration. Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1195–1241. Ngoma, S. (2009). An exploration of the effectiveness of SIS in Managing student performance. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507625.pdf. Accessed 13 Jan 2022. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL). (2000). Critical issue: Providing professional development for effective technology use. http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/ methods/technlgy/te1000.htm. Accessed 6 Jan 2022. Paradiso. (n.d.). Importance of LMS software during the Covid-19 pandemic. https://www.paradisosolutions.com/blog/importance-­lms-­software-­covid-­19-­pandemic/#. Accessed 15 Jan 2022. PowerSchool. (n.d.-a). PowerSchool: Powering bright futures. https://www.powerschool.com. Accessed 14 Jan 2022. Puentedura, R.  R. (2006) Transformation, technology, and education. http://hippasus.com/ resources/tte. Accessed 4 Jan 2022. Ribble, M. (2017). Digital citizenship. https://www.digitalcitizenship.net/home.html. Accessed 15 Dec 2020. Ribble, M. S., Bailey, G. D., & Ross, T. W. (2004). Digital citizenship: Addressing appropriate technology behavior. Learning & Leading with technology, 32(1), 6. Richardson, J. W., Flora, K., & Bathon, J. (2013). Fostering a school technology vision in a school leader. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 8(1), 144–160. Seashore, K. R., Anderson, A. R., & & Riedel, E. 2003. Implementing arts for academic achievement: The impact of mental models, professional community and interdisciplinary teaming. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/143717/Report.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 11 Jan 2022. Starr, L. (2009). The administrator's role in technology integration. Education World. https://www. educationworld.com/a_tech/tech087.shtml. Accessed 26 Dec 2021. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.

214

10  Learning Technologies and Educational Administration

Thompson, V. (2021). Leading the way on technology integration. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/leading-­way-­technology-­integration. Accessed 26 Dec 2021 TSSA Collaborative. (2001). Technology standards for school administrators. https://www.russell. k12.ky.us/userfiles/indexblue/admin_techstandards.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2021. Turan, S., & Bektas, F. (2013). The relationship between school culture and leadership practices. Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 155–168. U.S.  Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences. (n.d.). https://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2005/tech_suite/part_1.asp. Accessed 21 May 2022. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Technology. (2017). National education technology plan. https://tech.ed.gov/netp. Accessed 2 Jan 2022 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (n.d.). Education: From disruption to recovery. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse. Accessed 16 Jan 2022. University of Michigan-Dearborn. (n.d.). EDT 585–technology for administrators. Graduate catalog. http://catalog.umd.umich.edu/graduate/coursesaz/edt. Accessed 19 Aug 2022. Wayne RESA. (n.d.). Wayne RESA. https://www.resa.net. Accessed 14 Jan 2022. Westley, F., & Mintzberg, H. (1989). Visionary leadership and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 10(S1), 17–32.

References for Appendix ChildPlus. (2019, October 03). Retrieved June 22, 2020, from https://childplus.com Fingal, D. (2020, January 16). Infographic: I’m a digital citizen! Retrieved from https://www.iste. org/explore/infographic-­im-­digital-­citizen?articleid=19 GOLD. (2017, August 09). Retrieved June 22, 2020, from https://teachingstrategies.com/solutions/ assess/gold Harris, J., & Hofer, M. (2009). Instructional planning activity types as vehicles for curriculum-­ based TPACK development. Research highlights in technology and teacher education, pp. 99–108. PowerSchool. (n.d.-b). Retrieved June 22, 2020, from https://www.powerschool.com/solutions See, J. (n.d.). Retrieved June 22, 2020, from http://www.nctp.com/html/john_see.cfm Strange, L. (2015, April 11). Six-step process in creating a technology plan. Retrieved from https:// dese.mo.gov/quality-­schools/education-­technology/six-­step-­process-­creating-­technology-­plan Student-Centered Acceptable Use Policy. (n.d.). Retrieved June 22, 2020, from https://tech.ed.gov/ stories/student-­centered-­acceptable-­use-­policy What is Cyberbullying? (2018, November 27). Retrieved June 22, 2020, from https://cyberbullying.org/what-­is-­cyberbullying

Chapter 11

Conclusion

A holistic approach.

11.1 Summary Learning technologies such as computers, mobile devices, educational apps, the world wide web, and broadband Internet are readily available for educational use. A prevailing expectation of contemporary education in the U.S. is that learning technologies should enrich the nation’s schools. Yet, the rapid rate and pace of technological advancement in education have been highly debated. Moreover, given the remote learning challenges and opportunities that the COVID-19 pandemic has recently brought to the world’s attention, interest in learning technology discussion is at its peak. Addressing a comprehensive list of topics and issues related to learning technology applications in the U.S education system, the author of the present book aimed to contribute to the discussion and provide guidance to educators, education leaders, researchers, and policymakers, as they navigate school technology initiatives. The following section summarizes the significant contributions of this book. The author of the present book is an experienced educator whose expertise and research are in the area of learning technologies. He used three primary resources to guide the discussions in the book. First was an extensive literature review of the book’s central focus—research, trends, and issues related to learning technologies in the U.S. education system. Second, the author’s reflections on over 20 years of professional teaching, research, and scholarship experience at a comprehensive research university in the U.S. informed the discussions and the book’s content. And third, the viewpoints and comments of students in the graduate-level educational technology courses that the author regularly teaches and collects data from were included in the writing as the vital viewpoint of practicing teachers and educational leaders regarding how learning technologies affect their schools and their practice within them. The first step in this book (Chap. 1) was to describe the book’s purpose around the central theme–research, trends, and issues related to learning technologies in the U.S. education system. Next, the writing provided an overview of the education © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Duran, Learning Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18111-5_11

215

216

11 Conclusion

system in the U.S., presenting a context for the discussions addressed in the book. Finally, the author highlighted that the U.S. education system is highly decentralized; policies and practices may vary in different states and school districts. Therefore, the discussions presented in this book addressed general patterns of learning technology practices. The next step in the book included a series of chapters. Addressing several distinct but interrelated topics and issues in the following nine chapters, the book provided an in-depth analysis of learning technologies in the U.S. education system. In particular, with a historical context covering the past 20 years, this book discussed research, trends, and issues related to learning technologies in (a) K-12 schools (Chaps. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8), (b) higher education (Chap. 9), and (c) educational administration (Chap. 10), all trying to conceptualize one technology ecosystem in K-16 education. At the individual chapter level, the discussions followed the author’s particular writing strategy for the topics covered: first brought a historical perspective and then addressed current research, trends, and issues. Chapter 2 provided a theoretical and historical perspective on technology integration. Next, the writing included discussions about technology integration models. Further, the chapter explored perceptions and realities associated with the impact of technology integration in the teaching and learning process. Finally, the chapter addressed current trends and issues concerning technology integration. Chapter 3 focused on emerging technologies in K-12 education. The chapter first discussed STEM Learning, Coding, Makerspaces, Robotics, Learning Analytics, Virtual Reality (VR), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and the Internet of Things. Next, the chapter examined the current trends affecting decision-making in emerging technologies. The final discussion in this chapter addressed the issues related to emerging technologies in K-12 education. Writing in Chap. 4 focused on assistive technology. The chapter first presented background information about assistive technology in U.S. schools. The chapter next addressed instructional challenges for special needs students. Then, the writing focused on assistive technology applications in communication, mobility and positioning, computer access, vision and hearing, behavior and organization, and instructional aids. Further, the chapter described strategies for assistive technology integration in instruction, followed by the benefit of assistive technology in the classroom. Finally, the chapter examined current trends and issues related to assistive technology. Chapter 5 discussed funding for technology and the digital divide. The chapter first examined technology financing. Next, the writing analyzed the digital divide in its three forms–Economic dive, Usability divide, and Empowerment divide–followed by discussions related to prospects for bridge-building. The final part of the chapter focused on the conversation about funding for technology and digital dive under the COVID-19 pandemic. Chapter 6 addressed legal and ethical issues in educational technology. The chapter first examined potential legal issues addressing plagiarism, copyright and fair use, and safety and privacy. Next, the chapter discussed ethical issues, including netiquette, cyberbullying, and objectionable materials and educational control.

11.1 Summary

217

Finally, the chapter summarized the critical issues addressed and their implications for policy and practice. Chapter 7 focused on online learning in K-12 education. The chapter first examined online learning and blended learning opportunities in K-12 education. Next, the chapter analyzed the remote learning surges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, the chapter addressed current trends and issues in K-12 online learning. Chapter 8 closed K-12-focused discussions with an overarching concept of digital citizenship. The chapter first described the characteristics of citizenship in the digital age highlighting the “nine themes” of digital citizenship. The writing then focused on teaching citizenship in schools. Finally, the chapter ended by addressing the issues related to digital citizenship. Following the discussion on K-12 education, the focus moved to the higher education sector, addressing the use of a wide range of learning technologies and related developments in post-secondary institutions (Chap. 9). The chapter first described U.S. universities’ common learning technology practices, including classroom technology, blended learning, online instruction, and massive open online courses (MOOCs). Next, the chapter discussed technology integration into teacher preparation programs. Subsequently, the chapter addressed emerging technologies in higher education, including artificial intelligence, adaptive learning, learning analytics, learning design, extended reality, and open education resources. Then, the author focused on the current trends and developments in higher education as they impact technology initiatives. Finally, writing in this chapter ended with discussions on critical issues in higher education learning technology practices and their implications for policy and practice. In the final section, Chap. 10 presented the research, trends, and issues related to technology for administrators and educational leaders as they guide digital age learning. Within this context, the writing first focused on effective technology leadership practices such as establishing a vision and strategic planning for learning technologies, creating digital age learning cultures, promoting continuous improvement and professional growth, building systematic improvements, and promoting equity, inclusion, and digital citizenship. The chapter then discussed current trends and issues in guiding digital age learning, including the challenges school administrators recently faced with the surge of COVID-19. The last step in the book was the conclusion (Chap. 11). In this section, the author summarizes the arguments presented in the individual chapters and discusses how they fit together as part of an envisioned learning technology ecosystem–a holistic approach. Finally, the writer ends the chapter and the book with discussions on implications for policy and practice.

218

11 Conclusion

11.2 Learning Technology Ecosystem The author of the present book would like to emphasize that discussions presented in the individual chapters of this book can function alone but should not be disconnected from the whole. Schools have commonly considered a particular component of learning technology initiatives but rarely regarded them as part of a more comprehensive, interconnected system. This oversight limits the ability to address pressing school technology issues. Therefore, it is vital to understand various technology components and how they interact within a more extensive system–a learning technology ecosystem. As Díaz-Gibson and Daly (2020) noted, an ecosystem describes the intersection of a wide array of components. In the context of the learning technologies ecosystem, several entities interact together, such as those topics and issues covered in the main chapters of the present book–technology integration, emerging technologies, assistive technology, funding for technology and the digital divide, legal and ethical issues, online learning, digital citizenship, teacher preparation, and technology leadership. In other words, like in any ecosystem, any particular technology decision or lack thereof carries the potential to impact the different parts of the whole. The following example would be helpful to comprehend this phenomenon that the writer of this book is trying to convey. Many schools during the COVID-19 pandemic supplied technology tools to students, such as one-to-one (1:1) Chromebooks, so that access issues could be handled both in school and at home. But there is a distinction between simply equipping students with Chromebooks, for instance, and quality learning designed to engage students in a technology-rich instructional experience. One wonder if the following questions were in consideration when the decision was made to purchase Chromebooks: • Was the purchase part of the overall school technology plan? (as discussed in Chap. 10–Learning Technologies and Educational Administration). • Given that a Chromebooks’ use requires a high-speed Internet connection, was there consideration for school and home connection capacities (as covered in Chap. 5–Funding for Technology and the Digital Divide). • How about making Chromebooks work for students with disabilities. Was there consideration for assistive technology integration? (as addressed in Chap. 4– Assistive Technology). • Was there any teacher training after the purchase concerning the effective use of Chromebooks and associated features such as Google Suits in instruction? (as discussed in Chap. 2–Technology Integration and Chap. 9–Learning Technologies in Higher Education). • Concerning how experiences gained during the COVID-19 pandemic elevated remote learning investments, was there a consideration to pairing Chromebooks with other remote- and hybrid-appropriate teaching technology, such as digital whiteboards, green screens, headsets, body cams, etc.? (as examined in Chap. 7–Online learning in K-12 Education).

11.3  Implications for Policy and Practice

219

• How about any consideration for emerging technology addition to the Chromebooks, such as learning analytics and virtual reality headsets? (as investigated in Chap. 3–Emerging Technologies in K-12 Education) • Were students and teachers aware of legal and ethical issues they might face with the widespread use of Chromebooks and online access in school and at home, such as safety and privacy, copyright and fair use, and cyberbullying? (as discussed in Chap. 6–Legal and Ethical Issues in Educational Technology). • Finally, to what extent were students and teachers aware of the digital citizenship responsibilities this new one-to-one (1:1) Chromebook initiative would pose to them (as addressed in Chap. 8–Digital Citizenship). Suppose the above questions or some of them were not part of the decision-­ making process for the presumed one-to-one (1:1) Chromebook initiative. In that case, one element in the learning technology ecosystem may be addressed, allowing access to technology through Chromebooks. However, failing to address other critical components would likely repeat the “technocentric” understandings of technology use–one which prioritizes embracing the next new gadget–we have observed in the past (Cuban, 2015; Harris, 2005) rather than transforming learning through technology. As Harris (2005) argued, this is one of the main reasons “why many—if not most—large-scale technology integration efforts are perceived to have failed” (p. 116).

11.3 Implications for Policy and Practice Scholarly work in learning technology has emphasized that recognizing what technology integration is—and what it isn’t—comprises a necessary beginning of the journey down the integration path. But this is only the beginning. In this direction, recognizing the evolution of the ISTE Standards for Students (ISTE, 2016) over the years provides a valuable perspective: a primary focus for technology integration remains mainly upon learning, not tools. Identifying the current trends and issues and understanding the technology integration process’s complexities are equally important goals. Creating a shared vision of technology integration and making educators aware of the answer comprise crucial next steps in effectively using learning technologies in education. Creating an effective learning environment for students is the primary purpose of any educational institution. In this direction, utilizing technology seems to have mixed results (Darling-Hammond et al., 2014). Evidence shows that learning technologies can enhance students’ educational experiences when used effectively (Liu et al., 2017). However, the literature also supports the conclusion that multiple contextual issues continue to impact the outcome of technology initiatives in U.S. education, such as access to technology, teacher preparation, and technical support (Liu et al., 2017).

220

11 Conclusion

There are clear indications that emerging technologies will continue to impact the field of education both within K-12 and post-secondary levels and bring policy and practice implications to the education stakeholders’ attention (Freeman et al., 2017). Among them, STEM learning, coding, learning analytics, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality have the potential to enhance teaching and learning processes. Yet bringing emerging technologies into schools is only the initial step. Using them effectively will require structural changes, which include curriculum adaptation and teacher professional development (Tynan-Wood, 2016). Otherwise, many educators would fail to understand emerging technologies‘potential or challenges. In other words, while we embrace emerging technologies, we should try to avoid those “technocentric” understandings we have observed in the past (Cuban, 2015; Harris, 2005). Assistive technologies could help “redefine what is possible” for special needs students with varying cognitive, physical, or sensory disabilities (Netherton & Deal, 2006). Current trends and issues related to assistive technology in U.S. K-12 schools present multiple policy and practice considerations. Similar to the overall directions in digital technologies, assistive technology is becoming increasingly mobile, smaller, faster, and personalized (Bolkan, 2012; Bouck, 2017). In addition to standalone assistive technology devices and tools, an increasing volume of mobile tablets and smartphone apps are available for special needs students, teachers, and parents. Furthermore, the leading technology developers have also increasingly focused on creating inclusive assistive platforms for special needs students, allowing better educational options (Cohen, 2021). This development was notable during the recent COVID-19 pandemic and the necessary remote learning move (Macias, 2022). Yet, multiple challenges still need to be addressed, such as the continuing inclusive applications in the post-pandemic era (Patrick and Barbareschi n.d.). In addition, it appears that access and affordability would likely remain a challenge for the further adoption of assistive technology in K-12 education (Bouck, 2017; Watson & Johnston, 2007). Multiple aspects make funding for technology and the digital divide an ongoing concern for educators and policymakers. Funding disparity among U.S public schools appears to be a significant factor attributing to the digital divide among states, school districts, and individual schools (Biddle & Berliner, 2002; Horrigan, 2015; Vogels, 2021). If not addressed, the digital divide can potentially interrupt the educational quality of at-risk students, putting them at an even more disadvantage (Nielsen, 2006; Roberts & Hernandez, 2019). The digital divide surge during the recent COVID-19 pandemic should be a wake-up call to educational leaders and policymakers. If necessary actions are taken to bridge the divide, legitimate change is possible. Understanding the root causes of the digital divide–affordability, availability, and adoption–is the first step in the right direction. Breaking down silos among education stakeholders and focusing on members of society with lower levels of education, those living in low-income households and affected by the demographic difference, together create capacity that can make change possible. Legal and ethical issues have become a topic of concern as learning technologies have increasingly been used in K-12 schools. Common legal issues include

11.3  Implications for Policy and Practice

221

plagiarism, copyright and fair use, and, safety and privacy. In addition, netiquette, cyberbullying, and objectionable materials and educational control are critical ethical issues currently present in U.S. schools. Educators should demonstrate a broad understanding and best practices of legal and ethical use of learning technologies as they present policy and practice implications. This way, they can model proper use for their students, prevent misuse, and protect themselves from potential legal challenges (Lagola, 2021). Some school districts in the U.S have resources and policies to help teachers navigate ethical and legal issues regarding educational technology. Still, others face limited resources to adequately address the problems or access legal counsel. Understanding that educating students about the legal and ethical use of digital technologies requires a collective responsibility among all education stakeholders is the first step in the right direction. Therefore, lawmakers should establish legislation to empower schools to set appropriate policies and procedures. Also, teachers and parents must present best practices and communicate consensus. This way, we can expect a better outcome from students concerning digital technologies’ legal and ethical use. Online learning applications in U.S.  K-12 schools have increasingly become available in the last two decades. Offering customization, optimization, and flexibility (Lips, 2010), online learning options particularly became critical for those students in low-income and rural areas needing mobility to obtain a quality education (U.S.  Department of Education, 2011). In addition, U.S.’s remote learning surge under the COVID-19 pandemic brought a renewed perspective to online learning in K-12 education. Current conversation among education leaders indicates possible directions toward accelerated digital transformation in the next 5 years (Gewertz, 2020), along with significant growth in remote learning (Burt 2020). Education stakeholders should also closely watch hybrid schools’ developments in the K–12 digital spheres. This blended approach will likely emerge as the prevailing instructional model of the future (Watson, 2008). Yet, multiple challenges need to be addressed to adopt further online learning in K-12 education, such as the digital divide, the effectiveness of the offered programs, and data privacy issues. Despite growing up as “digital natives,” students still need education on digital citizenship (ISTE, n.d.; Ribble, 2017). Therefore, education stakeholders and policymakers should focus on this critical issue and take the necessary steps to ensure students obtain digital citizenship practices. The rapidly changing digital sphere requires the ongoing teaching of students to have a conscious and reflective presence online (Weinstein & James, 2022). Developing digital citizens is not just one person’s job but everyone’s responsibility (Song, 2020). Therefore, teaching about digital citizenship requires the engagement of all education stakeholders. Students, parents, educators, educational institutions, non-profit organizations, businesses, and government must collaborate to create a positive digital culture (Ohler, 2011). This should be a prevailing notion as the work on digital citizenship continues. Another trend in digital citizenship education is the positive digital citizenship movement. Even though many educators and parents are still concerned about safety and security issues, the positive digital citizenship movement is gaining

222

11 Conclusion

momentum where the risk factors are not ignored but affordances of digital space are celebrated (EPIK Deliberate Digital et al., 2017). Learning technology’s role in improving access, affordability, and learning outcomes are critical in higher education. Standard classroom technology, blended learning, online instruction, and massive open online course offerings are common in U.S. higher education. In addition, teacher preparation programs in the U.S. strive to integrate technology into the “program-deep and program-wide experiences” (Duran and Brunvand 2021; U. S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology 2016). Furthermore, emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, adaptive learning, learning analytics, learning design, extended reality, and open education resources present a possible high impact on higher education teaching and learning (Alexander et al. 2019; Brown et al. 2020; Pelletier et al., 2021). Therefore, higher education stakeholders should consider integrating them into campus technology planning. Yet, there are multiple issues to address, such as privacy, equity, and ethics concerns (Alexander et al. 2019; Brown et al. 2020; and Pelletier et al. 2021). Three trends seem to guide higher education learning technology initiatives: hybrid learning models, new learning technologies, and faculty development for online teaching (Pelletier et  al. 2021). Coupled with the rise of emerging technologies, these trends seem to bring a “next normal” to teaching and learning in higher education. Therefore, policymakers and higher education executives should strategically reimagine the future of post-secondary education. Yet, the digital divide and mental health issues must be addressed (Pelletier et al. 2021). Leadership research highlights that the qualities of educational leaders impact educational outcomes (Daly et al., 2019). Likewise, administrators can shape school technology initiatives (Thompson, 2021). Therefore, as they guide the digital learning age, the education leaders are expected to establish necessary policies and procedures and consider themselves social change agents (ISTE, 2018). Given that the COVID-19 pandemic has created a renewed focus on effective school technology operations, education leaders would likely need to stay ahead of the game as they support digital age learning. They should also recognize and develop partnerships among stakeholders to drive change implementations and establish ownership. In most cases, this “shared technology leadership” enables collaborative processes in technology implementations, leading to successful outcomes (Flanagan & Jacobsen, 2003). Yet, the frequent leadership turnover issue would likely continue as a critical factor facing educational institutions in U.S. schools (Levin et al. 2020), while school technology initiatives often require sustained leadership (Freeman et al., 2017). In sum, as we move forward, local, state, and federal education policies and practices must consider varying components of the learning technology initiatives. Perhaps more importantly, it is vital to understand how various technology components interact within a more extensive system–a learning technology ecosystem. Hence, the summary discussions presented in the above section for varying topics can be helpful alone but should not be disconnected from the whole. In addition, policies must incentivize partnership among education stakeholders and encourage collaboration. Finally, resources must be allocated to reflect an understanding that the system as a whole is accountable for success in learning technology initiatives.

References

223

References Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). A research synthesis/unequal school funding in the United States. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 48–59. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/-­unequal-­ school-­funding-­in-­the-­united-­states. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Bolkan, J. (2012). Research: IT predictions for 2013. THE Journal. https://thejournal.com/ articles/2012/12/19/research-­it-­predictions-­for-­2013.aspx?admgarea=News1. Accessed 21 June 2022 Bouck, E. C. (2017). Assistive technology. Sage. Cohen, D. B. (2021). How accessibility tech could change the future. ATERA. https://www.atera. com/blog/how-­accessibility-­tech-­could-­change-­the-­future. Accessed 21 June 2022 Cuban, L. (2015). Does integrating computers into lessons mean that teaching has changed? https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2015/10/20/does-­integrating-­computers-­into-­lessons-­mean-­ that-­teaching-­has-­changed. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Daly, A. J., Liou, Y., Del Fresno, M., Rehm, M., & Bjorklund, P. (2019). Educational leadership in the twitterverse: Social media, social networks, and the new social continuum. Teachers College Record, 121(14), 1–20. Darling-Hammond, L.  Zielezinski, M.  B., & Goldman, S. (2014). Using technology to support at-risk students’ learning. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/scope-­pub-­using-­ technology-­report.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Díaz-Gibson, J., & Daly, A.  J. (2020). What if we understand schools as learning ecosystems in times of COVID-19 pandemic. Teachers College Record. https://www.tcrecord.org/Content. asp?ContentID=23374. Accessed: 28 May 2022. EPIK Deliberate Digital, Impero Software, the Digital Citizenship Institute, and Educate Empower Kids. (2017). Prevention Science: A framework for positive digital citizenship. http://www. epik.org/wp-­c ontent/uploads/2017/12/White-­Paper-­A -­F ramework-­f or-­P ositive-­D igital-­ Citizenship.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2022. Flanagan, L., & Jacobsen, M. (2003). Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(2), 124–142. Freeman, A., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Davis, A., & Hall Giesinger, C. (2017). NMC/ CoSN horizon report > 2017 K-12 edition. The New Media Consortium. https://library.educause.edu/~/media/files/library/2017/11/2017hrk12EN.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2019 Gewertz, C. (2020). How technology, coronavirus will change teaching by 2025. https://www. edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/06/03/how-­technology-­coronavirus-­will-­change-­teaching-­by. html. Accessed 11 Nov 2020. Harris, J. (2005). Our agenda for technology integration: It's time to choose. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 5(2), 116–122. Horrigan, J.  B. (2015). The numbers behind the broadband “homework gap.” http://www. pewresearch.org/fact-­tank/2015/04/20/the-­numbers-­behind-­the-­broadband-­homework-­gap. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. International Society for Technology and Education (ISTE). (2018). ISTE standards for education leaders. https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-­standards-­for-­education-­leaders. Accessed 30 Nov 2021. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2016). ISTE standards for students. https://www.iste.org/standards/for-­students. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). n.d.). Digital citizenship in education. https://www.iste.org/areas-­of-­focus/digital-­citizenship. Accessed 6 May 2022. Lagola, K. (2021). A teacher’s guide to copyright and fair use. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia. org/article/teachers-­guide-­copyright-­and-­fair-­use. Accessed 22 Feb 2022. Lips, D. (2010). How online learning is revolutionizing K-12 education and benefiting students. https://www.heritage.org/technology/report/how-­o nline-­l earning-­r evolutionizing-­k -­1 2-­ education-­and-­benefiting-­students. Accessed 9 Oct 2020.

224

11 Conclusion

Liu, F., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Dawson, K., & Barron, A. E. (2017). Explaining technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A multilevel path analysis model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(4), 795–813. Macias, M. (2022). Some light in the pandemic darkness. Enabling Devices. https://enablingdevices.com/blog/some-­light-­in-­the-­pandemic-­darkness. Accessed 21 June 2022. Netherton, D. L., & Deal, W. F. (2006). Assistive technology in the classroom. The Technology Teacher. http://mhess1.pbworks.com/f/Assistive+Technology+in+the+Classroom+by+Nether ton.pdf. Accessed 9 June 2022. Nielsen, J. (2006). Digital divide: The 3 stages. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/digital-­divide-­ the-­three-­stages. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. Ohler, J. (2011). Character education for the digital age. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/ character-­education-­for-­the-­digital-­age. Accessed 4 May 2022. Ribble, M. S. (2017). Digital citizenship. https://www.digitalcitizenship.net/home.html. Accessed 9 May 2022. Roberts, T. & Hernandez, K. (2019). Digital access is not binary: The 5’A’s of technology access in the Philippines. https://www.ictworks.org/wp-­content/uploads/2019/02/5a-­technology-­access. pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2022. Song, J. S. (2020). Digital citizenship in the time of COVID-19: How can states change the narrative? https://www.iste.org/explore/digital-­citizenship/digital-­citizenship-­time-­covid-­19-­how-­ can-­states-­change-­narrative. Accessed 30 Aug 2021. Thompson, V. (2021). Leading the way on technology integration. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/leading-­way-­technology-­integration. Accessed 26 Dec 2021. Tynan-Wood, C. (2016). iPads in the classroom: The promise and the problems. Great Schools. https://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/ipad-­technology-­in-­the-­classroom. Accessed 18 Jan 2019. U.S.  Department of Education. (2011). More than 40% of low-income schools don't get a fair share of state and local funds, Department of Education research finds. https://www.eseanetwork.org/news-­and-­resources/blogs/used/us-­ed-­press-­release-­40-­of-­schools-­dont-­get-­fair-­ share. Accessed 5 June 2022. Vogels, E. A. (2021). Digital divide persists even as Americans with lower incomes make gains in tech adoption. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-­tank/2021/06/22/digital-­divide-­persists-­ even-­as-­americans-­with-­lower-­incomes-­make-­gains-­in-­tech-­adoption. Accessed 12 Feb 2022. Watson, J. (2008). Blending learning: The convergence of online and face-to-face education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509636.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov 2020. Watson, S., & Johnston, L. (2007). Assistive technology in the inclusive science classroom. Science Teacher, 74(3), 34–39. Weinstein, E., & James, C. (2022). Behind their screens: What teens are facing (and adults are missing). The MIT Press.

Index

A Artificial Intelligence (AI), 7, 8, 28, 35, 42, 46, 161, 162, 168–170, 180, 216, 217, 220, 222 Assistive technology, viii, 7, 8, 20, 49–71, 198, 216, 218, 220 B Blended learning in K-12 teaching, 131, 132, 164, 217 C Coding, 7, 35, 36, 38, 40, 43, 216, 220 Copyright, 8, 89–99, 113, 118, 148, 149, 154, 210, 216, 219, 221 Cyberbullying, 8, 89, 90, 100, 102, 107–110, 113, 114, 148, 152, 198, 209, 210, 216, 219, 221 D Digital citizenship, viii, 7–9, 145–158, 186, 187, 197–198, 201–203, 209–210, 217–219, 221 Digital divide, viii, 2, 4, 7, 8, 75–85, 135, 138, 139, 141, 150, 179, 181, 198, 216, 218, 220–222 E Economic divide, 78–80, 85 Educational control, 8, 89, 90, 102, 111–113, 216, 221

Emerging technologies, viii, 7, 8, 28, 29, 35–46, 93, 161, 162, 167–177, 180, 181, 201, 216–220, 222 Empowerment divide, 8, 78, 80–81, 85, 216 F Fair use, 8, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95–99, 113, 148, 149, 198, 216, 219, 221 Funding for technology, viii, 2, 7, 8, 75–85, 216, 218, 220 H Higher education, vii–ix, 2, 7–9, 23, 24, 124, 129, 161–181, 196, 216–218, 222 I The Internet of Things (IoT), 7, 35, 42, 68, 216 L Learning analytics, 7, 8, 35, 40, 41, 44, 46, 161, 162, 168, 169, 171–173, 180, 197, 216, 217, 219, 220, 222 Learning ecosystem, 1 Learning technologies, v, vii–ix, 1, 2, 7–9, 11, 12, 17, 21, 29, 35, 36, 42, 44, 45, 51, 75, 89, 90, 102, 112, 114, 133, 135, 136, 138, 140, 145, 153, 157, 161–181, 185–211, 215–222 Learning technology ecosystem, vii, 1, 9, 217–219, 222

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 M. Duran, Learning Technologies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18111-5

225

226 Legal and ethical issues in educational technology, viii, 7, 8, 89, 90, 114, 216, 219 M Makerspaces, 7, 35, 38, 39, 44, 216 N Netiquette, 8, 89, 90, 100, 102–107, 110, 113, 114, 149, 151, 198, 216, 221 Nine themes of digital citizenship, 149–153 O Objectionable materials, 8, 89, 90, 101, 102, 111–114, 216, 221 Online learning in K-12 education, viii, 7, 123–141, 217, 218, 221 P Plagiarism, 8, 89–93, 99, 113, 209, 210, 216, 221 R Remote learning in K-12 instruction, 83, 107, 114, 133–136, 221 Robotics, 7, 35, 36, 38, 39, 63, 68, 216 S Safety and privacy, 8, 89, 90, 99–102, 113, 114, 139, 153, 216, 219, 221 Special education, viii, 4, 20, 49, 52–55, 65–67, 208 STEAM learning, 35, 37, 43 Students with disabilities, 20, 49, 51, 52, 60, 63, 64, 67–68, 70, 218 Students with special needs, 4, 20, 49, 53, 63, 70

Index T Teacher preparation, viii, 8, 12, 23–25, 29, 36, 45, 50, 76, 89, 123, 146, 156, 161, 162, 165–167, 180, 186, 204, 217–219, 222 Teaching citizenship in schools, 8, 145, 146, 154–155, 217 Technology for administrators, viii, 9, 186, 187, 191, 217 Technology for education leaders, 43, 189, 190 Technology impact on education, 13, 161, 178, 180, 217, 220, 222 Technology integration, viii, 7, 8, 11–30, 35, 36, 43, 44, 46, 50, 51, 65–66, 70, 71, 76, 89, 90, 102, 123, 146, 161, 162, 164–167, 173, 180, 186–191, 193, 201, 205, 216–219 Technology integration models, 7, 11–13, 16–18, 216 Technology standards for administrators, 185, 186, 188, 190, 194, 197–199, 201, 202 Trends and issues in digital citizenship, 146 Trends and issues in higher education, viii, 2, 7, 8, 12, 15, 28, 36, 37, 50, 76, 85, 90, 101, 106, 112, 123–125, 146, 186, 215–217, 222 U Usability divide, 8, 78, 80, 85, 216 U.S. education system, vii, viii, 2–7, 20, 45, 49, 78, 215, 216 V Virtual reality (VR), 7, 28, 35, 41, 63, 69, 168, 174, 175, 216, 219, 220