21st Century Learning
Technology
Last Revised:
March 28, 2014
Prepared by:
Denny Bessire
Relevance
Technology is undoubtedly an important part of our everyday lives. Many jobs depend
on an individual’s ability to understand basic computer and Internet usage. Many more careers
rely almost exclusively on computer usage. Schools, parents and our community at large have
placed a considerable emphasis on computer usage as well. And it seems to be commonsense
that computers are crucial to enhancing learning.
But research about the effects of home computer and Internet access on academic success
is mixed. Some indicates that technology helps enhance learning (Hew & Brush, 2007) and
finds that home computer use is positively related to academic achievement (Battle, 1999;
Borzekowski & Robinson, 2005; Huang & Russell, 2006; Wittwer & Senkbeil, 2008) and even
the behavior of students (Lowther, Ross, & Morrison, 2001). Concerns over the “technology
gap” or “digital divide” have been expressed and researched because of these positive
correlations (Jackson, Von Eye, Biocca, Barbatsis, Zhao, & Fitzgerald, 2006) and evidence
certainly indicates that poor, rural, and urban students are significantly less likely to have access
to a home computer (Wenglinsky, 1998). Some researchers feel that a “Sesame Street” effect (a
tool designed to improve academic success in the masses just ends up widening the gap of
academic success between poor and non-poor students) has already come into play with
computers and Internet access (Battle, 1999). Wenglinsky (1998) notes that there are also a
number of other key factors about technology usage that must be taken into consideration when
attempting to properly implement innovative, 21st Century technology learning solutions, which
will be discussed later in this report.
Still other researchers are not convinced of the correlation between home computer
access and academic success. Fuchs and Wößmann provide some of the most convincing
evidence. When controlling for all extraneous variables with a bivariate and multivariate
analysis of home computer access, the researchers found a negative correlation between home
computer access and academic success (Fuchs & Wößmann, 2004). Other researchers have
drawn similar conclusions. Wenglinsky’s conclusions about proper usage may be the bridge
between the conflicting research (higher-order uses of technology seemed to be most important
in Wenglinsky’s study).
In Ogden, statistics indicate that students are lacking access to home computers with
Internet access in alarming numbers. According to Ogden United Promise Neighborhood’s
(OUPN) data, an estimated 35% have no access to the Internet through a home computer. No
data was collected about the presence of a home computer, merely the ability to access the web
through a home computer. Of the 65% who do have access, 15% only have access through dialup and other slower connections. No data was collected about the proficiency of students,
parents or teachers with technology; professional development in technology of Ogden teachers
or parents; or the degree to which computers in the OUPN neighborhoods were utilized for
higher-order uses and lower-order uses in classrooms and student activities. Higher-order uses,
Wenglinsky has indicated, are preferred uses of technology in classrooms. It should be noted,
however, that Wenglinsky’s study focused only on mathematics education. Higher-order uses
can involve learning games (as were utilized in the majority of the fourth-grade courses in
Wenglinsky’s study) or teachers using computers for applications of new concepts. The latter
version of higher-order uses can involve computer simulations or practices that help to solidify
concepts being taught. There is a fine line between higher-order uses and lower-order uses,
however. Lower-order uses are defined primarily as drills and other types of repetitive practice
with concepts being taught. With regards to Internet usage, no research could be located linking
higher-speed Internet with greater student achievement or success. Though research does
suggest that computer and Internet access in general at home correlates with students staying in
school, earning better grades and graduating from high school.
Census data paints a similar picture with statistics for the state of Utah. Census data
could not be located regarding Internet and computer access, but could likely be requested. The
census broke users down into four primary categories concerning Internet access which includes
access to home computers: No connection anywhere (with subcategories for computers being
present or not being present in the household), No connection at home, but connections
somewhere else (with subcategories for computers being present in the household or not being
present in the household), connection at home only (not from multiple devices and from multiple
devices), and connection at home and somewhere else (not from multiple devices and from
multiple devices) (File, 2013).
Of those with no connection anywhere or connections only available outside of the home
in Utah, 9.9% reported having no access to computers in the home (File, 2013). A full 29.2% of
Utah residents had no ability to connect to the Internet at home (File, 2013). OUPN data
indicates that the rates of Internet access at home are lower in Ogden when compared with state
averages from the census report.
Other Promise Neighborhoods have been focusing on technology and providing home
access to computers and Internet, choosing to focus on the evidence in favor of technology being
critical. Certainly familiarity with computers enhances computer skills for day-to-day use, but it
is entirely possible that home computer access may overall be detrimental to academic
performance, and perhaps a better route would be to provide community access as opposed to
individual, home access. This report will analyze the current initiatives implemented by other
Promise Neighborhood 21st Century Learning Technology program interventions as detailed in
their Appendix F summaries that might be of use in the Ogden initiative and provide
recommendations based on the research gathered.
Research Implications
It is important to note that research is mixed primarily on home computer and Internet
access. As discussed in the relevance section, there are many positive aspects of familiarizing
oneself with computers and the Internet, including developing basic computer proficiency,
utilizing the Internet for job-seeking and community support, checking a child’s attendance and
grades online, etc. Factors such as these should be considered when looking at 21st Century
Learning Technology solutions.
Another option that was considered for research purposes was the use of community
computer labs. While the other Promise Neighborhood initiatives did utilize community
computer labs in a variety of their interventions (as discussed in the section below), research was
not forthcoming about the effects of such labs on adolescent academic performance. Most
research centered around providing access to community services (which the labs utilized by
other Promise Neighborhoods do) and developing human capital by improving basic computer
skills.
Malamud & Pop-Eleches (2011) focus on the development of human capital for home
computer use, further echoing the concerns of Fuchs and Wößmann and the cautionary aspects of
Wenglinsky with regards to academic achievement. Malamud & Pop-Eleches, in a study of a
voucher program similar to those offered by some of the Promise Neighborhoods, found that
home computer use had significantly lowered the grades of school children but had significantly
improved their computer skills. At the same time, some evidence the researchers uncovered
suggested increased cognitive skills. The most significant takeaway, however, seems to be that
parental regulation of computer use and homework may be the variable that determines whether
home computer use results in net positive or net negative results. This further echoes
Wenglinsky (1998) who explained that higher-order computer uses were essential in school
computer use and computer use in general for seeing positive outcomes. Still, even Wenglinsky
provides caveats and cautionary warnings about those results, explaining that it could simply be
that students who achieve more are in turn more likely to use technology for these higher-order
uses. Basically, Wenglinsky clarifies that the correlation between the two is just that: a
correlation. The higher-order technology use may not cause better academic success, but rather
that academic success causes higher-order technology usage.
There are other potential concerns with home computer usage that could be worrisome as
well. Subrahmanyam, Kraut, Greenfield, & Gross (2000) found mixed results in their research,
further muddying the waters. They discovered that students who utilized computers more at
home spent even more time in front of the television. This put them at even more increased risk
for obesity. Evidence suggested that moderate use of computer games can in turn be detrimental
to a child’s friendships and family relationships. And the Internet was tied to increases in both
loneliness and depression. Violent computer games increased aggressiveness in children and
Subrahmanyam et al. caution that they may blur a child’s ability to “distinguish real life from
simulation” (2000, p. 1). Positive cognitive results were found, however, with regards to
children’s ability to visualize objects in three-dimensional space and follow multiple objects at
the same time. Evidence in their study showed only a slightly better correlation between
academic performance with home computer use though.
Additional concerns arise over Internet usage specifically. Kubey, Lavin and Barrows
(2001) found that heavier Internet usage in college students correlated with impaired academic
performance. They also found that loneliness, staying up late, tiredness and missing class were
correlated with higher Internet usage in college students. On the flip side, Jackson et al. find
amongst children from 10 to 18 years increased internet usage correlated with higher scores on
standardized tests of reading achievement and higher grade point averages over the course of 16
months. Additional research reflects this schism between findings as well, with some research
apparently indicating that the correlation between Internet usage and academic performance is
shaped like a bell-curve, with a sweet spot somewhere in the middle with increased parental
engagement in younger children.
Interventions
Research hasn’t necessarily supported any of the interventions being utilized by the other
Promise Neighborhoods. But, it should be noted that having computer access served more than
just the purpose of enhancing academic achievement in their interventions. Home computer
access provided parents with the ability to access online records regarding their children’s grades
and attendance. They also provided those families with access to job search engines, community
portals for a variety of services offered by the Promise Neighborhood programs, and other
beneficial community services. A summary of the interventions from the other Promise
Neighborhoods is included in the following table.
Table 1.2.
MISSION PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD
Technology Training for
Academic Success
MPN provided training to teachers and parents to familiarize them
with the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) School
Loop software. School Loop is a web-based communication system
similar to Ogden School District’s SIS2000+ which helps parents,
teachers and school administrators track student attendance,
homework submissions and grades. Twenty-eight (28) trainings per
year are offered to parents and teachers who had not yet begun to
utilize School Loop. Teachers were incentivized to attend training
with gift cards valued at $50.
Streetside Stories
MPN partnered with Streetside Stories to help facilitate higher-order
technology uses. Streetside Stories uses media arts and technology
coaching models to help teachers and afterschool service providers
create technology lesson plans to integrate with academic content
areas, teach technology-drive lesson plans with help from Streetside
Coaches, and expand the use of technology and media arts in SFUD
core curriculum.
Media Lab
MPN and Streetside Coaches intend to create a media lab. The
media lab will be outfitted with hardware (iPads, digital cameras,
projectors and various other peripherals).
Universal Access Strategy
MPN’s Universal Access Strategy intends to offer free public and
low-cost private Internaet access, referring families to low-cost
computers which could be purchased from a partner, offering
vouchers to support acquiring the hardware as part of an incentive
program for attending computer training courses.
BUFFALO PROMISE NEIGBHORHOOD
Broadband Access
Computer Access and Training
By partnering with Westiminster Foundation and One Economy,
BPN is providing families with Broadband Access. One Economy
is a non-profit that specializes in providing low-cost broadband
solutions to economically challenged areas. BPN did not know the
methods that One Economy would implement at the time of writing
the Appendix F but anticipated broadband costs as low as $5-$10 a
month.
BPN will utilize its partnership with Computers For Children
(CFC) to provide hardware and digital skills training. CFC offers
basic PC introduction, construction and refurbishing, software and
various other training programs to young people.
CHULA VISTA PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD
San Diego Futures Foundation
Digital Cafes
SDFF is a non-profit organization that aims to “improve lives in
San Diego through the deployment, adoption, and use of
technology.” CVPN will rely heavily on its partnership with SDFF
to provide technology access and training. SDFF will, in addition
to digital cafes discussed below, provide technology to residents
through in-kind donations and low-cost technology.
CVPN will provide community access to technology through
digital cafes to be implemented at several schools in the CVPN
area. SDFF will provide equipment for the build-out of the digital
cafes, 75 computers in the first year of implementation and 50
computers in years 2-5.
Digital Literacy Training
SDFF will likewise provide digital literacy training for those who
have little to no exposure to technology and more advanced
training for those who have little to no exposure to technology and
more advanced training for those at higher skill levels seeking to
improve their competency. The training serves the purpose of
empowering individuals to use computers effectively for
educational, workforce and community resource purposes.
LOS ANGELES PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD
Public Computer Centers
LAPN intends to open 20 public computer centers throughout the
LAPN area through the support of the U.S. Department of
Commerce’s Broadband Technologies Opportunity Program
(BTOP). BTOP is a program designed to expand broadband
infrastructure and access throughout the United States as part of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The DoC’s
website states that LAPN and the Youth Policy Institute (YPI),
which heads the LAPN effort), received over $5.5M in federal
funding. LAPN intends for the centers to provide links to LAPN
schools and programs to increase advanced computer and
broadband use in selected LAPN neighborhoods.
Workshops and Classes
Workshops and classes would be offered at the Public Computer
Centers, like SAT Math Prep workshops, various practice tests,
diagnostic tests and video lessons.
Technology Training (School)
Youth enrolled in LAPN schools would have their technology
skills enhanced through classes and technology services offered
daily in afterschool programs (to include video game design;
computer literacy geared for elementary, middle and high school
students and parents; etc.) that will be administered along with
other services by coordinators trained by LAPN’s Technology
Coordinators.
LA County Regional Broadband
Consortia
School2Home Program
LABRC is currently engaged in a $2.3M effort that would address
the digital divide by hosting discussions about broadband in an
attempt to spread awareness and support adoption of new
technologies. They will also provide additional educational
training that will improve the digital literacy skills of residents
throughout the LA County area.
YPI will also sponsor a School2Home program which will provide
families of middle school students with computer literacy training
and free home computers, laptops or iPads.
Research into the alternatives utilized above also revealed the following federal programs
and studies attempted to overcome the “digital divide” and promote technology usage, literacy
and adoption.
Table 1.3
ALTERNATIVE INTERVENTIONS
AT&T Connect
Comcast Internet Essentials
AT&T, in support of the FCC’s public goal of lowering the cost of
Broadband Internet Access, is a program that helps overcome this barrier
for low-income families. If a family’s child qualifies for the free-lunch
program, AT&T boasts that the family will qualify for broadband
Internet access at $10 a month. They also offer access to cheap
hardware through various partners through their website. AT&T offers
free materials to help non-profits like OUPN sign up customers for their
program.
Similar to AT&T Connect, Comcast provides low-income families
whose children qualify for the free-lunch program a break on broadband
Internet access (also $10 a month). They also offer vouchers on their
website for cheap computers ($150 and the voucher will get one a
computer through a Comcast partner). Comcast offers non-profits free
materials through their website to help promote and sign up low-income
families.
Like the YPI initiative with the LAPN, there are grants available through
the DoC’s Broadband Technologies Opportunity Program awarded in
Utah. These grants were awarded to organizations that might serve as
potential partnerships for OUPN:
BTOP
The state of Utah has received over $147,000,000 in grants from the
BTOP, awarded to eight different organizations. Below are some
organizations that could provide potential partnerships to OUPN:
University of Utah received over $13M to enhance and expand the Utah
Education Network (UEN) throughout the state by deploying fiber-based
Ethernet broadband services to 130 anchor institutions throughout the
state (to include elementary schools, public libraries, charter schools and
Head Start centers.
The Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency (UTOPIA)
received over $16M to enhance its existing fiber network and bring
improved broadband to the Great Salt Lake region of Northern Utah.
ZeroDivide received over $1M to bring regional training and broadband
access to low-income youth in Utah
Technology to Support
Parental Engagement
Lewin and Luckin (2010) ran a study in the UK that tested the use of
technology in 23 elementary schools in three “areas of social
deprivation” to enhance parental engagement in elementary education.
Their findings suggested that interactive resources that are flexible and
link home and school can enhance parental engagement, but that even
simpler and less intensive programs utilizing things like email and
websites can “provide opportunities for quick wins”.
Laptop Programs
Lowther, Ross and Morrison (2001) evaluated the implementation of a
laptop program in which 5th and 6th grade students were equipped with
laptops and engaged in laptop classrooms with wireless access to
Internet and printers. It provided those students and their parents with
instruction on basic digital literacy and the teachers with developmental
courses on using laptop technologies in their classrooms. Results overall
were promising with significant differences in writing skills and
achievement on standardized assessments between the laptop and nonlaptop classrooms. Also of note was an enhancement in student
behavior between the two groups. No math assessments were done as
part of this study.
\
Advantages/Disadvantages
Potential disadvantages seem to stem mostly from a lack of parental engagement.
Without it, excessive computer and Internet usage can result in decreases in socialization,
academic performance and even attendance while seeing increases in loneliness, tiredness and
depression. With appropriate supervision, training and limitations, computer and Internet access
can arguably enhance academic performance and provide students (and parents) with valuable
computer literacy skills that improve employment opportunities and usage of community
resources.
The biggest disadvantage to pursuing a 21st Century Learning Technology, however,
seems to be the potential for it to do nothing while wasting money that could have been spent on
more beneficial interventions or instructional methods. If theories about the “Sesame Street”
effect are accurate, the damage from these technologies may already be done. If theories
regarding its negative effect on education are correct, then providing families from deprived
socio-economic backgrounds with computer and Internet access could potentially worsen
academic performance and lead to a slew of other problems regarding attendance, behavior and
even mental health.
The biggest advantage seems to stem from increasing parental engagement. Increased
parental engagement, even when facilitated by technology, seems to correlate with increased
academic performance in students as well as improvements in student behavior. Additionally,
parents seem to be the big winners in many of these technology programs because they gain
additional access to community resources, employment opportunities, and enhanced technology
literacy. Additionally, it could be argued that it removes stress associated with their children’s
academic capabilities since they may feel pressure to provide their children with technology
access to write reports, do research and complete various homework assignments, but be unable
to afford it.
In summary, the most successful programs and interventions will likely center around
providing community hubs and centers that also provide digital literacy training. This can
provide students with access to computers for academic purposes (and recreational purposes as
well) but with limitations parents may be unable to exercise over them. Additionally, increasing
access for the community to community resources through these hubs (and arguably home access
as well) has the added benefit of enhancing other Promise Neighborhood interventions (like
financial literacy, employment opportunities, etc.).
Works Cited
Battle, P. (1999). Home computers and school performance. The information society, 15(1), 1-10.
Borzekowski, D. L., & Robinson, T. N. (2005). The remote, the mouse, and the No. 2 pencil: the
household media environment and academic achievement among third grade students. Archives
of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 159(7), 607.
Buffalo Promise Neighborhood. (2011, September 12). Promise Neighborhoods. Retrieved January 23,
2014, from Department of Education Website:
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/promiseneighborhoods/2011/u215n110046appendix.pdf
Chula Vista Promise Neighborhood. (n.d.). Apendix F.
Department of Commerce. (n.d.). Grants Awarded in California. Retrieved January 25, 2014, from
Broadband USA website: http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/california
Eynon, R., & Malmberg, L.-E. (2011). A typology of young people's Internet use: Implications for
education. Computers & Education, 56(3), 585-595.
File, T. (2013). Computer Internet Use in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Fuchs, T., & Wößmann, L. (2004). Computers and student learning: Bivariate and multivariate evidence
on the availability and use of computers at home and at school. CESifo working papers, No.
1321.
Hew, K., & Brush, T. (2007, June). Integrating Technology into K-12 Teaching and Learning: Current
Knowledge Gaps and Recommendations for Future Research. Educational Technology Research
and Development, 55(3), 223-252.
Huang, J., & Russell, S. (2006). The digital divide and academic achievement. The Electronic Library,
24(2), 160-173.
Hunley, S. A., Evans, J. H., Delgado-Hachey, M., Krise, J., Rich, T., & Schell, C. (2005). Adolescent
Computer Use and Academic Achievement. Adolescence San Diego, 40(158), 307.
Jackson, L. A., Von Eye, A., Biocca, F., Barbatsis, G., Zhao, Y., & Fitzgerald, H. (2006). Does home internet
use influence the academic performance of low-income children? Developmental psychology,
42(3), 429.
Kubey, R. W., Lavin, M. J., & Barrows, J. R. (2001). Internet use and collegiate academic performance
decrements: Early findings. Journal of Communication, 51(2), 366-382.
Lewin, C., & Luckin, R. (2010). Technology to support parental engagement in elementary education:
Lessons learned from the UK. Computers & education, 54(3), 749-758.
Los Angeles Promise Neighborhood. (n.d.). Promise Neighborhoods. Retrieved January 25, 2014, from
Department of Education Website:
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/promiseneighborhoods/2012/app-youthpolicy.pdf
Lowther, D. L., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (2001). Evaluation of a Laptop Program: Successes and
Recommendations. Building the Future (pp. 1-8). Chicago: National Educational Computing
Conference.
Malamud, O., & Pop-Eleches, C. (2011). Home computer use and the development of human capital. The
quarterly journal of economics, 126(2), 987-1027.
Subrahmanyam, K., Kraut, R. E., Greenfield, P. M., & Gross, E. F. (2000, Winter). The Impact of Home
Computer Use on Children's Activities and Development. The Future of Children, 10(2), 123-144.
Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does It Compute? The Relationship Between Educational Technology and Student
Achievement in Mathematics. Educational Testing Service Policy Information Center. Princeton,
NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Wittwer, J., & Senkbeil, M. (2008). Is students' computer use at home related to their mathematical
performance at school? Computers & Education, 50(4), 1558-1571.