Advance with Caution

By J. McKenzie

Technology in the classroom has widely been accepted and recognized for its potential and

relevance to positively impact student learning (Roble, et al., 2020), but to what extent do we, as

teachers, integrate technology into our learning environments?

In chemistry, in a reaction to produce impactful learning, we’d consider teachers to be the

limiting reagent, because it is the “skill and attitude of the teacher that determines the effectiveness of

technology integration into the curriculum,” (Bitner and Bitner, 2002).

Teachers are the lynchpin to success.

Bitner and Bitner (2002) outline eight keys to success in their article titled, “Integrating

Technology into the Classroom: Eight Keys to Success.” These eight areas are “fear of change, training in

basics, personal use, teaching models, learning based, climate, motivation, and support” and are all

focused on how to support teachers. Through reading this article, it became apparent to me, that the

integration of technology is not going to be fast, nor seamless. Nor should it be. This fits with my learned

experience and observations in the various schools I’ve worked in for the last fourteen years. Teachers

need training and the release time to learn if they are to be successful at integrating technology.

Technology is an ever-evolving field, and this constant change can be intimidating and

discouraging to teachers, especially those less tech-savvy. This steady evolution means there is a need

for teachers to continuously learn and improve upon their understanding of the available technological

resources. Teachers will need to continuously engage in professional development (Roble et al., 2020)

and this can also be frustrating, deterring, and exhausting. If teachers were given motivation, support,

and a positive learning environment, as Bitner and Bitner (2002) suggest, teachers would be more

willing to take on this task.

 This fits with what I’ve personally seen and heard from my colleagues as the school’s tech

liaison. My colleagues would love to learn new things, but often feel they don’t have the time or

support. Some just don’t see the value or have an interest in learning new things. Fostering a positive

learning environment with teaching models, training and release time should become a priority to

school districts if they wish to see more technology implementation in the classroom by more motivated

teachers.

While technology can enhance learning, encourage life-long learners, improve student

achievement and attitude, and reduce anxiety of students toward the mathematics classroom (Roble et

al., 2020), we’ve all heard the dreaded dangers of too much screen time, especially if we’re also parents.

In the “Impact of screen time on mental health problems progression in youth: a 1-year follow-up

study,” Wu et al. (2016) determined screen time had a “small, yet statistically significant” impact on

mental health. Yet they also conclude that the effects of screen time as a “practically significant risk

factor for mental health” remains unclear.

This means that although screen time might pose a small danger to learners, it’s not clear how

much impact it will have. This leads me to my own conclusion that we should monitor screen time usage

and make observations and adjustments as time progresses. For example, I’ve noticed as a parent, if my

nine-year old son gets more than an hour of screen time in one sitting, he becomes irritable and

impatient with me and everyone else around him. We adjusted his screen time allowance to reflect this

discovery and no longer see this less than desirable behaviour. The same concept can and should be

applied to students and teachers in the classroom.

So far, from my article analysis, the need for teachers to have time and support to learn

technology, and the effects of screen time have been addressed, but what does that mean for the actual

amount of technology used in the classroom?

 While teachers have autonomy within our classrooms and can therefore individually decide the

answer to this question, it’s also important for teachers to reflect on the implications of our decisions on

students for the rest of their time within the public education system. Instead of jumping “all in” we

should advance and implement technology into the classroom with caution.

In the article “The good, bad and ugly of technology integration in mathematics from the Lens of

public school mathematics teachers,” Roble et al. (2020) concluded that technology integration needed

oversight to ensure that technology was not being used as a substitute for understanding concepts.

They also stressed the need to ensure “no loss of proficiency in basic computation and technique that

would later impede the mastery of mathematics.”

Right now, I use technology as a supplemental tool. I have my notes on the SMARTboard and I

use Microsoft Teams to create online learning environments, deliver online formative quizzes, post

notes and YouTube videos, and receive student submissions. I use Desmos, Geogebra, graphing

calculators, Spheros (programmable robots), clinometers and tape measures as tools for mathematics.

What I need to work on is adding more inquiry-based learning activities involving software that will give

students real-world job-applicable skills and understanding, such as creating graphs and tables in Excel,

and to provide opportunities for students to play and learn from current online models.

The complete substitution of technology for mathematical computation in order to focus on

teaching mathematical reasoning as Wolfram (2010) suggests in his TED Talk titled “Teaching Kids Real

Math with Computers,” is an example of one extreme on the scale of technology integration, with no

technology being on the other end. While I was inspired to adapt my use of technology in the classroom,

I also found Wolfram’s ideology unrealistic, and problematic. This is because there seemed to be little to

no consideration for the ramifications and implications for taking on such an innovative take of

technology integration.
 As a secondary mathematics teacher, I’m dependent on the fundamental skills taught from

kindergarten through to grade nine. If elementary teachers adopt Wolfram’s strategy, they will greatly

impact my ability to teach students how to do more complicated math in grades ten to twelve. If I were

to adopt computer use for mathematical computation, instead of supplemental, and didn’t teach

students how to do the computational work themselves, I would condemn the majority of these

students to failing first year university calculus courses because they would lack the basic skills required.

Would you go to a basketball coach and tell them to stop drilling layups with the players? With

Wolfram’s logic applied to this scenario, demonstrating the layup technique and having the players

watch videos is enough for them to understand the mechanisms of a layup, but it won’t provide these

players with the ability to do the layups themselves.

Now some might say, “That’s the point. We only want our students to have a basic

understanding. They don’t need to do layups,” and they’re not wrong.

This brings us all back to that basic, fundamental question: Why? Why do we teach?

What is our goal?

I think it’s safe to say that education in British Columbia as a whole is having an identity crisis.

We don’t know the answer to that question. Or we all think we do, but we all have different answers.

The challenge lies within addressing the diversity of our students and their diverging paths in life. While

some students would benefit from a more holistic understanding of mathematics to enter the

workforce, others will need a mastery of mathematical computation to succeed in post secondary

institutes.

Not all of our students are university bound, or STEM career-bound, of course, but some are. So

how do we ensure we’re providing that fundamental foundation of mathematical computation to our

high-achieving academic students while still nurturing and supporting learners that have different,

equally valid, life goals?

 In order to foster and create positive, learning-based classrooms seamlessly integrated with

technology, school districts need to not only acknowledge and validate teacher concern and fears, but

also support teachers by providing training, personal connection, teaching models, positive learning

climates, motivation and support. It is my conclusion that we should integrate technology in incremental

steps with caution and observation as our comfort level grows, continuously making adjustments as

needed.

References:

Bitner, N., and Bitner, J., (2002). Integrating Technology into the Classroom: Eight Keys to Success.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 10(1), 95-100

Roble, D. B., Ubalde, M. V., Castillano, C., (2020). The good, bad and ugly of technology integration in
mathematics from the lens of public school mathematics teachers. Journal Name. 32(5), 525-528

Wolfram, C. (2010, July) Teaching Kids Real Math With Computers. TED
Talks. https://www.ted.com/talks/conrad_wolfram_teaching_kids_real_math_with_computers

Wu, X., Tao, S., Zhang, S., Zhang, Y., Chen., Yang, Y., Hao, J., Tao, F., (2016). Impact of screen time on
mental health progression in youth: a 1-year follow-up study. BMJ Open. 2016(6). E011533