Running head: INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 1

The Importance of Integrating Basic Technology Skill Standards into a School’s Curriculum

Stephanie Aguirre

Western Oregon University

INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 2

Abstract

The need for technological skills has grown exponentially. In response to this need the

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) mentions multiple technology skills learning goals within

the standards students must ascertain in order to successfully meet many literacy-based

standards. In addition, many states have also converted to technology-based standardized

assessments that students are expected to successfully navigate. However, without proper

implementation of technology standards at each grade level, teachers and students have begun to

encounter obstacles that are having a negative impact on students’ ability to accomplish multiple

standards and knowledgeably navigate state mandated assessments. Without a standard

progression of technology usage standards that teach basic technology skills such as typing, use

of a mouse, and word processing software that are mandatorily taught at each grade level,

students across the United States are struggling to become college and career ready after high

school.
INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 3

The Importance of Integrating Basic Technology

Skill Standards into a School’s Curriculum

The technological needs of 21st century students are expanding exponentially. The

“mainframe” era of computers emerged in the early 1970s and mostly consisted of large

corporations utilizing giant computing equipment behind closed doors, and the users were

generally experts in the field of technology. Personal computers and similar technology began to

surface in the marketplace in the mid-1970s and has radically improved since then. Just a decade

later, the advent of the personal computer changed the relationship people had with technology

dramatically. As the years have progressed people have begun to rely heavily on their computer

for a variety of reasons (Weiser & Brown, 1997). The rising need for the computer and computer

skills in the job market are becoming increasingly noticeable. In summary, there is no question

that having basic computer technology skills is, not only marketable, but absolutely necessary, in

the current time we live in (Carver, 2016). This paper argues that the need to integrate basic

technological skills into the Common Core State Standards in as early as kindergarten is essential

to a student's success.

The growing need for students to acquire computer skills has not been lost on educational

institutions. In 1983, it was estimated that the average school had one computer available per 168

students. In the last 36 years the amount of digital equipment and its availability to students has

significantly increased. According to research done by the National Center for Educational

Statistics in 2010, the number has changed to 1 computer per 5.3 students and 97% of teachers

reported having a computer in their classroom (Carver, 2016). While the availability of

technology in the classroom is steadily increasing, so too, are the expectations of students to

utilize technological tools every day in the classroom (Ed Tech Strategies, 2017).
INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 4

In 2009, state school chiefs and governors collaborated with teachers, administrators,

and other experts in the field of education to design the Common Core State Standards. The main

goal of these standards that have now been adopted by 45 states was to achieve consistent long-

term educational goals across state lines (Common Core, 2019). Multiple standards across

academic disciplines now require students to be proficient and knowledgeable about basic

technology and technology skills in order to be successful. One example is a third grade English

Language Arts (ELA) Comprehension and Collaboration standard (SL.3.2) that expects students

to be able to determine the main idea of a text and then share their answer using a media format.

Due to the expansion of this standard in each following grade, it is imperative that this standard

is taught thoroughly (Roberts, Shedd, & Norman, 2012; Common Core, 2019). Prior to the

development of the CCSS the use of technology in the classroom was generally taught by a rare

group of teachers that saw the value of it, and they were generally viewed as progressive and

ahead-of-their-time. In contrast, these standards have now made the student learning of

technological skills a requirement that teachers must adhere to. The expectation that students use

technology to collaborate, evaluate, analyze, and integrate multiple language arts concepts is

consistently embedded in many of the CCSS ELA standards (Heick, 2016).

Given in conjunction with CCSS are the state-mandated tests that multiple states require

students to take. Many of these tests begin in the 3rd grade and are completed via a technological

device, such as a desktop computer, an iPad, or a Chromebook. Mandated standardized tests are

not especially new tools states are using to monitor the academic growth and achievement of

students; however, the method of administration of these tests is now predominantly done using

a computer or similar technology. In many states, such as Oregon, students begin taking the

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) in as early as the 3rd grade. The SBAC is an
INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 5

online assessment that is the result of educational experts from 30 different states coming

together and spending four years of research and data collection and then, finally, creating and

piloting it in multiple school districts. Their ultimate goal was to align the assessment to the

CCSS and provide a variety of features that allowed for equitable testing to all students. The

SBAC uses a computer adaptive program. This customization feature of the online test causes

the questions asked to the students to change based on whether they answered the previous

questions right or wrong (SBAC, 2018). Following the development and completion of the

SBAC, it was adopted into the curriculum by many school districts. What is not being taken as

seriously as the assessment itself in these districts, is the 13 page document titled, “The Smarter

Balanced Guide to Technology Readiness.” In this document it is stated,

Beyond the alignment of classroom instruction to standards, it also is important that

teachers take steps to align their approach to instruction with the mode of technology-

based testing, primarily by regularly assigning schoolwork that requires the use of

computers. In circumstances where teachers are not comfortable using technology for

teaching and learning in their classrooms, professional learning opportunities—coupled

with hands on training activities on how to use subject specific software and applications

—can be valuable, especially when it is targeted to identified student needs. (Ed Tech,

2017, p. 10)

In other words, this means the creators of the SBAC assume the teachers understand students

must be equipped with the necessary skills before taking the assessment. While some

characteristics and features are unique to the SBAC, many other tests across the United States,

such as the PARCC, SAT, ACT, and M-STEP, are very similar in nature (Gewertz, 2017).

Because these standardized tests are so widely used, it is crucial that teachers make a significant
INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 6

effort to integrate these basic technological skills. Because these standardized tests are so

widely used, it is crucial that teachers make a significant effort to integrate these basic

technological skills.

Based on numerous literacy standards many basic technology skills, such as the use of a

mouse, typing, and general word processing are not required of students until the 3rd grade. The

mere fact that these standards are in place implies that it is erroneously assumed that students

have been taught these skills beforehand. The architects of the CCSS understood in order for

students to tackle the learning goals set forth and, further, show proficiency on state mandated

assessments, they needed to be equipped with these basic skills. It was conclusively decided,

however, that each individual state would be responsible for closing this gap in student learning

(Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2019). Without specific mandated standards in place,

these skills are oftentimes overlooked, thus leading to some students across the country being

less prepared than others.

While many standards require students to use keyboarding skills, CCSS W.6 states that,

as early as kindergarten, students should be learning how to type on the standard QWERTY

keyboard (Roberts, Shedd, & Norman, 2012). The standard does not explain how students should

type and what is the most effective way to do so, but for many years touch typing, or using what

is known as the home row position, has been considered to be the most effective way to learn

this imperative skill (Trubek, 2011). Touch typing allows the user of a computer to type without

constantly looking at the keyboard and, therefore, the typist can more quickly and efficiently

type a document (U.S. Patent No. 8,206,04, 2012).

Most adolescents and adults are aware of what a mouse is in relation to technology, but

the fact that it has multiple beneficial and useful features is not as widely understood. The
INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 7

original computer mouse which was invented by Douglas C. Engelbart in 1968 had one use only:

to navigate and control the information being analyzed on the computer screen. Since then, many

helpful features of the mouse have evolved. The function of a right click on the mouse and when

to use it is not common knowledge amongst most young children (Markoff, 2013). A computer

mouse can be external or internal, but the left and right click feature is a function that is shared

regardless. In many media and software platforms there are added features that can only be

accessed with the knowledgeable use of a mouse. Each embedded technology standard requires

students to be capable of using this technological device (Common Core, 2019).

Another important skill that students should be appropriately taught is word processing.

Word processing is the ability to compose, format, revise and edit text on a computer. Microsoft

Word is a popularly used word processing software program and it is continuously evolving with

more and more features and tools. Users have the ability to insert, draw and manipulate pictures

and even incorporate graphic organizers to their document. Notes and research once gathered and

written with paper and pencil can now be typed and stored using word processing software. In

fact, CCSS W.8 explicitly calls on students “to gain information from digital and print sources,

taking and organizing notes” (Roberts, Shedd, & Norman, 2012). In other words, students are

expected to analyze research from a digital media source and take notes using word processing

software. Additionally, many of the state-mandated assessments have embedded similar word

processing tools that students must be able to use in order to effectively answer short and long

response questions.
INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 8

Supporting Evidence

Several main obstacles are currently standing in the way of students receiving the basic

technology skills instruction that is so imperative in order for them to be successful at every

grade level. Most teachers understand the importance of integrating technology skills instruction

but feel overwhelmingly incapable of doing so due to inadequate training. For example, a survey

showed 97% of teachers had technology available to use, but only 40% actually used it (Carver,

2016). Charlotte Lysne, a teacher that has taught 3rd grade for 17 years and has seen the

technology requirements of her students increase dramatically, admitted that one of the main

reasons she feels intimidated about teaching technology is, simply because she does not feel

appropriately trained.

We are expected to embed these technology skills into much of our students’ writing, yet,

it is done in a way that can only be described as incompetent instruction and I just don’t

feel right about that” (C. Lysne, personal communication, February 24, 2019).

Lysne’s frustration stems from the fact that her students are expected to effectively learn these

skills, even though she is not adequately taught how to teach them. Ironically, even though the

expectations for students to use keyboarding skills have intensified, proper instruction on touch

typing, using the home row position to type on a standard QWERTY keyboard, is being taught

less and less in the classroom. This is a frustrating fact that continues to emerge in students who

are not taught keyboarding skills and are attempting to learn it on their own. This usually results

in a typing practice known as the “hunt and peck” method of typing. This is a habit that can be

very difficult to break and, for many, it can negatively impact their success of later technology

standards that require students to type and publish writing work samples (Trubek, 2011). In other
INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 9

words, if students are not appropriately taught how to type, they will likely learn less effective

techniques on their own.

At the heart of every academic concept taught in a classroom is the professional

development administered to teachers beforehand pertaining to the why and how to teach it

effectively. In a quantitative study done on teachers that looked at the many factors including

teacher and student perception of technology and utilization in the classroom, Baylor & Ritchie

(2002) found that professional development has a significant influence on whether or not it is

embraced by the educator (as cited in Afshari, Bakar, Wong, Samah, & Fooi, 2009). Many

school districts know professional development that supports the implementation of academic

concepts is vital, yet, when it comes to technology training it is severely lacking in many US

school districts (Carver, 2016). For example, the state of Michigan, has seen increasingly low

test scores in the last 4 years according to their state-mandated test, the M-STEP. In response,

Michigan is diligently working to prepare students better for the future. One way they are

attempting to do this is by scaffolding technological readiness skills beginning in kindergarten.

Educational experts in Michigan have concluded embedding technology readiness and other 21st

century skills relating to technology into their long-term vision and goal is a key component to

preparing their students for each following year (Dawsey, French, & Wilkinson, 2018; Michigan

Department of Education, 2016). Similar to literacy and math standards, technology and how and

when it should be defined and conveyed to students should be a continual focus of each district’s

professional development plan. This focus will not only raise awareness of the importance of

teaching technology skills, but provide teachers with the foundation and ability to do so.

In the last 20 years, it has become more and more apparent the set of skills that people

should ascertain in order to become productive citizens in the 21st century is very different than
INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 10

that of the 20th century. Computers and machines are now doing much of the work people were

required to do not so long ago, and our reliance on technology is only expanding (Barell et al.,

2010). While the CCSS does not provide the necessary framework of technology integration, it

does highlight and represent the fact students must learn these skills to be effective workers after

high school and beyond. The mere fact that so many literacy standards require students to type,

publish and interact with technology showcases its value in today’s workforce. Thus, the current

view that learning technological skills maximizes Common Core success is slightly slanted. In

actuality, it is impossible to fully conquer these standards without basic technology skills

instruction (Stoekl, 2004).

Another obstacle students are having to overcome when trying to navigate technology

skills without proper instruction has to do with the equitable distribution of technology hardware

and software to low-income students and students with disabilities. While the use of technology

would significantly benefit these two groups of students, it is generally unavailable to them in

two distinct ways. In more affluent schools where the devices can be obtained and offered to

disabled students, the proper instruction of how to use them is overlooked, thus, they are often

not used correctly or, in some cases, at all (Du, Havard, Sansing, & Yu, 2004; Afshari et al.,

2009). These schools oftentimes find it easier to purchase technology than to provide the

professional development necessary to use them. In contrast, there are many schools that do not

have the economic resources to provide technology to its faculty and students at all (Du et al.,

2004). In these situations, there is even less availability for teaching technology skills.

Over 40 years ago, congress passed into law the Education for All Handicapped Children

Act which is now known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). While the

expectations have advanced throughout the years, the general premise of the law remains the
INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 11

same; every child with a disability is guaranteed access to fair and equal education (Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act, n.d.). Technological aids have greatly assisted in closing the

learning gap that exists for many students with a range of disabilities. One device that is

becoming more popular for schools to equip students with is a small tablet that digitally converts

printed text so that students can access the material with built in accommodations and

modifications. It is referred to as either an assistive technology (AT) or accessible educational

materials (AEM) device. Using the device students can immediately access dictionaries and have

text read to them (National Center on Accessible Educational Materials, n.d.). While incredibly

helpful, students must first be knowledgeable about how to use the technology before it can be of

any use to them. The software on an AT ranges from text-to-speech, video tutorials, access to

school resources to a variety of programs that assist with math and writing. According to the

National Center of Accessible Education Materials (n.d.), in order for students to get the most

out of their AT, they must know how to effectively use their device, and there is a high success

rate for students with disabilities that have received instruction from a trained individual. The

training begins with school personnel who can then effectively instruct their students. The

instruction of basic technological skills is the foundation for which ATs and their uses can be

fully applied in the classroom.

Many educational experts have taken notice the advancement of technology has the

possibility of offering equal educational access to low-income students when compared to

students who may be more fortunate. Many of the new computing programs and software tools

offer teachers a wide array of opportunities to differentiate instruction for their students.

Unfortunately, technology is not always equitably distributed across the schools in the United

States. This problem is then exacerbated by the fact that these very same disadvantaged students
INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 12

often do not have technology available at home as well (Milone & Salpeter, 1996; Stanford

Graduate School of Education, 2014). Communities across the nation that have the means to put

technology into the hands of students are seeing an exceptional increase in their ability to

achieve. The educational gap between the economically advantaged students versus the

disadvantaged, what is known as the digital divide, is becoming increasingly obvious (Du et al.,

2004). The International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) in the 1990s put forth

standards that have called for the implementation of technology skills in conjunction with the

CCSS. If these standards are mandated, and appropriate funding is provided to all schools in the

US equitably, this could begin to decrease the growing digital divide (Swain & Pearson, 2002)

and, therefore, provide a road to success for all students despite their socioeconomic status.

Counter-Arguments

Most teachers overwhelmingly agree that students should be taught basic technology

skills but oppose the idea that it should take away from the valued instructional time they

currently have to teach math and literacy concepts. The average school day is 6 ½ hours long,

and it would be difficult to add on another standard. Teachers typically believe writing time

should be devoted to honing a students’ writing skills, specifically with a pencil and paper. The

argument, in summary, is that with the current amount of time allotted to teachers during the

school day it would be next to impossible to embed yet another standard (Ertmer, Paul, Molly,

Eva, & Denise, 1999). While these teachers have a valid concern, it is important to reiterate the

point that awareness of technological skills (use of a mouse, keyboard, typing and processing

skills) in this current age is just as important as literacy, math and writing. These core subjects

are mandatorily taught so that students can be college and career ready. The lack of instruction,

beginning at an early age, of basic technology skills is causing a foundational deterioration of the
INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 13

core subject standards due to an increasing demand that technology be integrated within them.

Therefore, while the time throughout the school day is, indeed, limited, technology readiness

skills can no longer take a “back seat.” In other words, embedding the proficiency standards

needs to be a priority despite the limit of instructional time afforded to teachers (Bennett &

Everhart, 2003).

Much of the avoidance of technology instruction to students by teachers stems from

teachers’ belief and/or attitude about technology. Much research has shown that a teacher’s

understanding of technology strongly affects their perception of and desire to use it in the

classroom (Hutchison & Reinking, 2011). It is understandable that a teacher might feel this way

if very little professional development has been given regarding proper instruction of technology

skills to students. The advancement of technology over the last several years is beginning to cast

a very bright light on this issue in school districts across the United States. Many administrators

have noticed that without proper training tied to new technological purchases for schools they are

essentially throwing their money away (Afshari et al., 2009). For this reason, it is becoming

more common for funds to be dispersed, not just on the technology devices, but on training as

well (Pianfetti, 2001). This is a critically important change that should have a tremendous effect

on the attitude and confidence of teachers regarding technology readiness instruction.

Conclusion

In theory, the implementation of technology into the CCSS and state-mandated

assessment is valuable and understandable. Although, like any subject area, there must be a

foundational approach to how students are to learn these new skills. Most educators are working

diligently to effectively teach basic technology skills but without specific guidelines and training

it is causing frustration and academic suffering for both the student and teacher. A standard
INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 14

progression of technology standards that are mandatorily taught would not only assist teachers

but provide a equitable educational experience to each student across the country. Based on the

length and rigor of the CCSS, it can be assumed that the task of identifying and instituting them

was a cumbersome ordeal that required much consideration. However, when considering the

orchestration of technology readiness and literacy into the standards it appears that there was not

a lot of forethought involved. In order for students to thrive after school, this issue needs to be

confronted and corrected in each school district and at each grade level.
INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 15

References

Afshari, M., Bakar, K. A., Wong, S. L., Samah, B. A., & Fooi, F. S. (2009). Factors affecting

teachers’ use of information and communication technology. International Journal of

Instruction, 2(1).

Barell, J., Darling-Hammond, L., Dede, C., DuFour, Rebecca, DuFour, Richard, Fisher, D., . . .

Seif, E. (2010). 21st century skills. J. Blanca & R. Brandt, (Ed.). Bloomington, IN:

Solution Tree Press.

Bennett, H., & Everhart, N. (2003). Successful K-12 Technology Planning: Ten Essential

Elements. Teacher Librarian, 31(1), 22–26. Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.wou.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db

=aph&AN=12123760&site=ehost-live

Carver, L.B. (2016). Teacher perception of barriers and benefits in K-12 technology usage. The

Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 15(1).

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2019). About the standards. Retrieved from

http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/

Dawsey, C.P., French, R., Wilkinson, M. (2018, August 29). Michigan is failing its students, as

state test scores keep tanking. Retrieved from https://www.bridgemi.com/

talent-education/michigan-failing-Its-students-state-test-scores-keep-tanking

Du, J., Havard, B., Sansing, W., & Yu, C. (2004). The impact of technology use on low-income

and minority students' academic achievements: Educational longitudinal study of 2002.

Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

Ed Tech Strategies. (2017). The smarter balanced guide to technology readiness. Smarter

Balanced Assessment Consortium.

INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 16

Ertmer, P. A., Paul, A., Molly, L., Eva, R., & Denise, W. (1999). Examining teachers’ beliefs

about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on

Computing in Education, 32(1).

Gewertz, C. (2017). Which states are using PARCC or Smarter Balanced? Education Week.

36(21).

Heick, T. (2016, June 23). The intersection of technology and the common core standards.

Retrieved from https://www.teachthought.com/technology/the-intersection-of-

technology-and-the-common-core-standards/

Hutchison, A., Reinking, D. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of integrating information and

communication technologies into literacy instruction: A national survey in the United

States. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 312-333. doi: 10.1002/RRQ.002

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/

Isaac, S.A., Melmon, B.S., & Levy, R. (2012). U.S. Patent No. 8,206,047(B1). Washington, DC:

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Markoff, J. (2013). Computer visionary who invented the mouse. New York Times.

Michigan Department of Education. (2016). Technology scope and sequence. Michigan

Integrated Technology Competencies for Students.

Milone Jr, M. N., & Salpeter, J. (1996). Technology and equity issues. Technology & Learning,

16(4).

National Center on Accessible Educational Materials. (n.d.). AEM for teacher educators. AEM

for teacher educators. Retrieved from http://aem.cast.org/about/quick-start-teacher-

educators.html#.XIghUihKjIV
INTEGRATING BASIC TECHNOLOGY SKILL STANDARDS 17

Pianfetti, E. S. (2001). Focus on research: Teachers and technology: Digital literacy through

professional development. Language Arts, 78(3).

Roberts, K., Shedd, M., & Norman, R. (2012). The common core standards on technology: A*

SHIFT* in focus for states. New England Reading Association Journal, 48(1).

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. (2018). What is smarter balanced. Retrieved from

http://www.smarterbalanced.org/about/

Stanford Gfraduate School of Education. (2014, September 10). Technology gaps can close

achievement gaps, improve learning. Retrieved from https://ed.stanford.edu/news/

technology-can-close-achievement-gaps-and-improve-learning-outcomes?print=all

Stoeckl, S. (2014, December 24). Infographic: technology maximizes common core success.

Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/explore/ISTE-Standards-in-Action/Infographic%3A-

Technology-maximizes-Common-Core-success

Swain, C., & Pearson, T. (2002). Educators and technology standards: Influencing the digital

divide. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3).

Trubek, A. (2011, August 15). Out of touch with typing. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved

from

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/425018/out-of-touch-with-typing/

Weiser, M., & Brown, J. S. (1997). The coming age of calm technology. Beyond Calculation.

Springer, New York, NY.