At one time or another, you’ve probably been part of a conversation regarding the pros and cons of using digital devices in your classroom and likely recognize the question: Should students be using Chromebooks, iPads, and laptops to complete their work, or should they be learning with traditional pencil and paper?
On one side of the online/offline debate, some teachers infuse tech into everything that is done in class, whether best practice or not. On the other side of the equation, there are classrooms where student devices are tucked away in backpacks or under desks collecting dust every day.
Both of these scenarios are problematic, and best practices typically land somewhere in the middle of these two snapshots. Exactly what that middle ground looks like is subject to debate, and further research is still needed in this area.
Despite the lack of empirical evidence, there are five guiding questions that can help you determine when and how much classroom technology you should integrate into a given lesson.
1. What is the learning goal?
Your lesson planning should always begin with your learning objective. What is it that students should know and be able to do at the end of the lesson?
With your objective in mind, you can then begin to determine the degree of tech integration that is appropriate by asking a key follow-up question: Will the integration of technology into the lesson improve the student outcome, or will it impede learning? To help you further process that question, you can ask, “Would removing a digital device (or adding a device) change student thinking or just the format?”
If the only impact of adding or subtracting technology from a lesson is a format change, then the learning benefit to students is likely minimal. On the other hand, if the use of technology moves student thinking from simple recall to complex analysis and creation, then technology is likely to improve the learning experience in a meaningful way.
The SAMR model, created by Dr. Ruben Puentedura, addresses this part of tech integration. SAMR consists of four levels: substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition. The first two levels are about task enhancement, while the second two are about transforming the learning experience.
At the substitution level, technology simply replaces an analog task. An example of this would be typing a paper rather than writing it. Although it may be easier to read student writing, there is minimal learning gain here.
At the augmentation level, technology introduces functional improvements. In the case of the writing example, it might mean using spell-check, speech-to-text, dictionary and thesaurus access, or grammar checkers. The use of technology may also result in an increased ease of revision, and that could also improve the final product. Even though augmentation is clearly a step up from substitution, if tech use stops with either of these categories, the benefits from technology integration will be limited.
The modification level introduces transformational task redesign, which will potentially benefit students more significantly. In the writing example, this could include real-time peer editing or in-line teacher comments. It might also include automated AI-powered feedback that helps to guide student thinking and writing without doing the actual writing for them. These examples improve the feedback loop and can help students improve their writing more quickly.
At the redefinition level, students are completing tasks and processes that would have been impossible or inconceivable without technology. Technology is literally redefining what is possible. This might include expanding a student audience beyond the classroom through blogs or websites. It might also mean transforming a written text into video, audio, or interactive eBook formats.
Even when moving up the SAMR scale, it’s important to always return to your objective. If the technology ends up doing the required thinking for the students, that’s a problem. However, if the technology preserves the thinking included in the lesson’s learning target and adds enhancements or lifts students to higher levels of thinking, then tech integration becomes a winning formula.
2. How is technology impacting cognitive processing?
This question is related to the prior one in that it’s important to make sure that the technology is not replacing or hindering the students’ thinking. If your learning targets are being shortcut, technology is probably not a good choice.
Research suggests that students may be able to process printed text more deeply than online text due to several variables. First, printed text often includes fewer distractions, like the temptation to open a new tab or multitask. Additionally, printed text may slow down the reading process, resulting in less skimming. The printed page is also stable and stationary, again leading to potentially fewer distractions.
On the other hand, much of the text that adults come in contact with is presented digitally, not on paper. Because of this truth, students will need to gain the skills necessary to read and comprehend in digital environments as well. This process includes developing skills that translate into a digital space and using strategies like digital highlighters and posing questions in the margins with a comment feature. Older students may be better equipped to process text digitally and handle these more complex digital interactions.
When it comes to note-taking, similar ideas and questions apply. Are students simply taking dictation when they type their notes, or are they mentally processing what they hear?
When taking digital notes, students should be taught active listening strategies, like summarizing rather than typing verbatim, asking themselves questions, and highlighting or grouping key ideas together on the page. These strategies are similar to those used in taking effective paper notes, but the process may look and feel a bit different in a digital environment, thereby requiring teachers to directly teach these skills and call out the differences.
3. Who is doing the work?
Whenever someone is using technology, that technology is doing some portion of the work. After all, that’s really the point of technology. One key to successful tech integration is to ask if the work that the tech is doing is work that’s critical to the learning objective. If it is, then that technology may be shortcutting the learning.
Sometimes, the technology is doing work that is unrelated to the lesson outcome. This may enable students to get through busywork faster in order to spend more time on the thinking that actually matters for the lesson. In those cases, technology can be an accelerator of learning and should be leveraged.
Artificial intelligence has amplified the importance of this question. In terms of writing, AI is certainly capable of doing the thinking for the students. Because of this growing power of AI, teachers need to thoughtfully consider how AI is being integrated into the process. Some tools, like the Khan Academy Writing Coach, do not do the actual writing for the students. Instead, they coach or guide students through the writing process, much like a teacher would. Because it’s an AI assistant, the feedback and coaching is immediate and personalized to the student. This frees up the teacher to work individually and personally with students who need the extra help.
4. Are humans in the loop?
Learning is a human endeavor. We are working in classrooms with students who not only need to learn academic content but also how to work collaboratively and live in a human society. In this light, human interactions should not be outsourced to computers. Our students need to learn to work together on a human level to develop creative solutions to complex problems.
Can technology help in this endeavor? Absolutely. The resources available online or through interactions with AI chatbots are unprecedented in their scale and scope. The possibilities unlocked by this access are nearly endless. At the same time, our students need to know how to work safely and effectively within these environments while also bringing the benefits of digital resources into their human-to-human interactions.
When using digital tools in the learning process, consider how you can ensure that the learning experience retains a meaningful human in the loop. This might mean having students create a digital product while working collaboratively in face-to-face groups. It might also mean making sure that student voice is present before, during, and after an interaction with an AI chatbot. The students generate the prompt, monitor and review the output, and then use their own judgment to determine the validity and usefulness of the output.
5. What is the sweet spot?
Finally, you’ll need to find that sweet spot between no tech and all tech. Where does technology enhance or transform learning? Where does it impede learning? Many times, the answers to these questions result in a combination of online and offline learning within the same lesson.
Perhaps part of the process can be enhanced with tech, and part of the task is better left offline. For instance, brainstorming could happen offline, a product could be created digitally, and then humans could work collaboratively to test and evaluate the outputs.
Similarly, maybe the first step is independent work in a digital environment that is later debriefed in a face-to-face group. Alternatively, perhaps the initial learning activity is offline, followed by digital practice with immediate feedback, and then a face-to-face debrief.
Tech integration may also look different across various grade levels. Younger students might begin with smaller uses of edtech for very targeted and limited purposes. As students get older and are better able to self-regulate, the tasks may become more student-centered and open-ended. This natural evolution can help to scaffold student skills while preparing them for the digital world that they’ll ultimately graduate into.
In the end, what this looks like in practice will be determined by the learning situation, available resources, and most importantly, your professional decision-making. The goal isn’t less tech or more tech. The goal is better learning.
AVID Connections
This resource connects with the following components of the AVID College and Career Readiness Framework:
- Instruction
- Opportunity Knowledge
- Student Agency
- Insist on Rigor
- Break Down Barriers
- Align the Work
- Advocate for Students
Extend Your Learning
- A Comparison of Children’s Reading on Paper Versus Screen: A Meta-Analysis (May Irene Furenes, Natalia Kucirkova, and Adriana G. Bus)
- The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking (Pam A. Mueller and Daniel M. Oppenheimer)
- The Effectiveness of Online and Blended Learning: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature (Barbara Means, Yukie Toyama, Robert Murphy, and Marianne Baki)