Technology in Elementary Schools: Use or Misuse?
The age of technology has arrived in the elementary classrooms. Personal computers that have become more the norm than the exception in homes are now a part of the school curriculum for
The age of technology has arrived in the elementary classrooms. Personal computers that have become more the norm than the exception in homes are now a part of the school curriculum for
most elementary students. Software companies are falling over themselves to provide educational programs and schools are actively pursuing Internet access for their students. Parents need to take a step back from this alluring package to see it completely. Technology in elementary classrooms may provide many avenues for enhancing education but comes with at
least as much misuse and potential for abuse.
In all honesty, the potential in computers and software programs seems unbounded. The introduction thirty years ago of Sesame Street certainly heralded the arrival of technology specifically aimed at children. More programs, including the Electric Company, followed. These fast paced, visually mesmerizing programs were aimed at children of all ages. Their purpose was to teach without loosing the audience’s attention. From my personal experience at that time, I can attest to the fact that it worked and worked well. No one ventured to question the wisdom of allowing children to watch, for several hours every day, programs which were specifically designed to educate and enlighten them. In addition to this it kept them quite and entertained. Mothers and caregivers were freed up for a few precious hours to complete necessary tasks without leaving their brood unattended.
Around the mid 70’s into the 80’s there was an increase in elementary school children diagnosed with learning disorders and a concurrent development of programs to deal with these problems. This was, of course, accompanied by an increase in funding for school districts that “identified” these children and adopted prescribed special education programs.
Near the same time frame, the social conscience of society was revisited. Programs and schools that dealt selectively with mental, emotional or physical handicaps were being judged exclusive and “main streaming” became the new catch phrase. It must be realized that these programs did indeed benefit many children, especially those with a physical handicaps. These children were no longer defined by their physical disabilities, but by the person they were.
The influx of these children into the public school setting resulted in funds to establish special education curriculum and resource rooms with personnel to address the special needs these children might have. They also served to help integrating them into a broad classroom setting.
I gathered statistical information regarding the types of disabilities included in federally supported programs over the past twenty-five years (Digest of Educational Statistics 1998 and 1999). In doing so I discovered a very interesting and relevant fact about those children included who have “specific learning disabilities.” Because of what the other categories included, it is reasonable to assume that SLD (Special Learning Disabilities) would exclude mental, emotional and physical disabilities including speech and language impairments. Children in this category were diagnosed with or treated for disorders such as hyperactivity, ADHD, and dyslexia to name a few. In 1976, the number of children in this category was a distant third behind speech or language impairments and mental retardation. By 1984-85 SLD included the largest number of children. In the last statistical data available form 1997-98, children with “specific learning disabilities” outnumbered the next two categories by from two, to over four times. This increase was seen by some as an indicator of improved in diagnostic techniques. Children viewed before as unruly and troubled-makers (even if they were only five) now had a defined problem for which treatment could be sought. In the later 80’s and into the 1990’s this frequently included medicating these children so that they could function in a “normal” classroom setting and not be a distraction themselves. In the past five years, this treatment was been revisited (Kozlowski; Detroit News, 04/17/00). Although there are children who benefit greatly form therapy with drugs such as Ritalin, we are now being told that often children were perhaps too quickly or easily diagnosed. Frequently suggested is that normally active children were being quieted to better control elementary classrooms and facilitate learning by all. I do not necessarily fault those in the educational system for this misguided use. Much can be gained from reviewing actions and learning form mistakes. I believe more is to be gained by studying this increase in “Specific Learning Disabilities” and the parallel growth of technology, which has been specifically aimed at elementary school age and younger children.
Television, the first real technology to directly impact younger children, was initially described by its detractors as a “vast wasteland.” The advent of “Sesame Street” in the 1969-70 televisions seemed to legitimize the cooperative effort between entertainment and childhood education. It fostered a genuine enthusiasm for the educational children’s television programs that followed. The 1980’s marked the introduction and by 1989 the widespread use of computers by students in school. In fact the rate of student usage in 1st to 8th grade rose from 69 percent in 1989 to 79 percent in 1997. This is higher than the usage rate for high school or college students in 1997. A compelling fact noted in this same study, however, is that elementary school students were far less likely than high school or college students to use home computers for schoolwork (Resource and Technology 04/00). It should be noted, on the other hand, that there was a proliferation of computer software games introduced onto the market specifically created to be educational. History, math, geography, spelling, the list was as endless as it was promising. Moreover, it was aimed at early learners from preschool through elementary school. As a parent, I can attest to the fact that the lure was irresistible.
As early as 1979, with Jerry Mander’s Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, this supplemental form of education came under close scrutiny. He pointed out the passive relationship viewers have with a television. The point of his book “was not to argue that there are no good programs on television. It was to point out that the consequences of television’s existence in out society are far more significant that its program content” (Haugsjaa, 04/10/00). One reviewer, in fact, suggested that anyone reading this book then rent the movie Network to understand how Mr. Mander’s book complements the manipulating and dehumanizing themes in this movie
In May 1999 Susan R. Johnson M.D. presented a paper as a senior project at Waldorf School of San Francisco. Her paper addressed effects of technology, television and computer technology specifically, on preschool and elementary age children. She carefully and fully describes the sequential development of a child’s brain from infancy through elementary school age. She emphasizes how important it is for children to have experiences that stimulate and integrate the senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. We learn that we need to protect them from over stimulation, as they are quite literally sponges and do not, as of yet, have the brain capacity to filter out noxious sense experiences(3).
Dr. Johnson describes the importance of a connection that forms early in childhood between the right hemisphere which is more intellectual and responsive to visual images, and the left hemisphere. The left hemisphere specializes in analytical and sequential thinking and step-by-step logical reasoning(3).
The learning enhancement of computer technology and television with children is closely tied to the visual and auditory stimuli that these programs are meant to generate. Dr. Johnson, however, reminds us of studies on young children which consistently demonstrate that when simultaneously exposed to visual and sound stimuli, they focus on the visual, frequently not absorbing the sound content (Healey 1990)(6).
Her concern becomes clear as we realize that the focus on right hemisphere stimuli results in over stimulation with which a child cannot yet cope. Furthermore, this results in a lack of stimulus for the imagination in the left hemisphere. The child does not create the visual images he or she sees, even if they remember them. Answers are factually based but do not involve the perception or judgment that interaction with other humans and nature is known to foster. We learn that it is difficult to create a picture when we have already been shown the image. How can a child learn to discern the subtle nuances involved in face-to-face interaction from a person viewed on a monitor or screen? Technology can garner emotions, but only as an individual reaction, not as the energy and intelligence found in the “heart” of out brain. This is learned only from a child’s experience interacting face-to-face with another(7).
Dr. Johnson speaks about the importance of a crucial neurological pathway called the corpus callosum. It is a bridge between the right and left hemisphere and one of the latest maturing parts of a child’s brain. “This pathway provides the interplay between the analytic and intuitive thinking, and several neuropsychologists believe the poor development of this pathway affects the right and left hemispheres effective communication with each other and may be a cause of attention and leaning difficulties” (Healey 1990)(4).
And the connection comes around full circle. The content of technology programs is not the issue here. It is of the technology itself and the effect it has on children that must be carefully understood. Even with a closely regulated technology program, the importance of reading and the connection to nature, other people and to our senses cannot be overstated. Technology has a place in the elementary school classroom but it is best kept well regulated and minimal.
Works Cited
“Federally Supported Programs for the Disabled 1976-1998.” Digest of Educational Statistics, 1998; Chapter 2, Enrollments, Table 53, 04/05/00
“Federally Supported Programs for the Disabled 1976-1999.” Digest
of Educational Statistics, 1999; Elementary/Secondary Chapter,
Page 24, table 54, 04/10/00 <http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/majorpub.asp>
Haugsjaa, Erik. ‘Suburbinization of the Mind” online review of Four
Arguments for the Elimination of Television. 04/10/00
Healy, Jane. Endangered Minds: Why Children Don’t Think and
What We Can Do About It. 1990, New York, Simon and
Schuster
Johnson, Susan R. M.D. “Strangers in Our Homes: TV and Our
Children’s Minds”, 04/04/00
Kozlowski, Kim. “Teen Death Attributed To Ritalin”, Detroit News
Page 1A 04/17/00
Mander, Jerry. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.
1978, New York, William Morrow and Co.
“Resource and Technology/1999”. Digest of Educational Statistics
Chapter 7, 04/05/00
In all honesty, the potential in computers and software programs seems unbounded. The introduction thirty years ago of Sesame Street certainly heralded the arrival of technology specifically aimed at children. More programs, including the Electric Company, followed. These fast paced, visually mesmerizing programs were aimed at children of all ages. Their purpose was to teach without loosing the audience’s attention. From my personal experience at that time, I can attest to the fact that it worked and worked well. No one ventured to question the wisdom of allowing children to watch, for several hours every day, programs which were specifically designed to educate and enlighten them. In addition to this it kept them quite and entertained. Mothers and caregivers were freed up for a few precious hours to complete necessary tasks without leaving their brood unattended.
Around the mid 70’s into the 80’s there was an increase in elementary school children diagnosed with learning disorders and a concurrent development of programs to deal with these problems. This was, of course, accompanied by an increase in funding for school districts that “identified” these children and adopted prescribed special education programs.
Near the same time frame, the social conscience of society was revisited. Programs and schools that dealt selectively with mental, emotional or physical handicaps were being judged exclusive and “main streaming” became the new catch phrase. It must be realized that these programs did indeed benefit many children, especially those with a physical handicaps. These children were no longer defined by their physical disabilities, but by the person they were.
The influx of these children into the public school setting resulted in funds to establish special education curriculum and resource rooms with personnel to address the special needs these children might have. They also served to help integrating them into a broad classroom setting.
I gathered statistical information regarding the types of disabilities included in federally supported programs over the past twenty-five years (Digest of Educational Statistics 1998 and 1999). In doing so I discovered a very interesting and relevant fact about those children included who have “specific learning disabilities.” Because of what the other categories included, it is reasonable to assume that SLD (Special Learning Disabilities) would exclude mental, emotional and physical disabilities including speech and language impairments. Children in this category were diagnosed with or treated for disorders such as hyperactivity, ADHD, and dyslexia to name a few. In 1976, the number of children in this category was a distant third behind speech or language impairments and mental retardation. By 1984-85 SLD included the largest number of children. In the last statistical data available form 1997-98, children with “specific learning disabilities” outnumbered the next two categories by from two, to over four times. This increase was seen by some as an indicator of improved in diagnostic techniques. Children viewed before as unruly and troubled-makers (even if they were only five) now had a defined problem for which treatment could be sought. In the later 80’s and into the 1990’s this frequently included medicating these children so that they could function in a “normal” classroom setting and not be a distraction themselves. In the past five years, this treatment was been revisited (Kozlowski; Detroit News, 04/17/00). Although there are children who benefit greatly form therapy with drugs such as Ritalin, we are now being told that often children were perhaps too quickly or easily diagnosed. Frequently suggested is that normally active children were being quieted to better control elementary classrooms and facilitate learning by all. I do not necessarily fault those in the educational system for this misguided use. Much can be gained from reviewing actions and learning form mistakes. I believe more is to be gained by studying this increase in “Specific Learning Disabilities” and the parallel growth of technology, which has been specifically aimed at elementary school age and younger children.
Television, the first real technology to directly impact younger children, was initially described by its detractors as a “vast wasteland.” The advent of “Sesame Street” in the 1969-70 televisions seemed to legitimize the cooperative effort between entertainment and childhood education. It fostered a genuine enthusiasm for the educational children’s television programs that followed. The 1980’s marked the introduction and by 1989 the widespread use of computers by students in school. In fact the rate of student usage in 1st to 8th grade rose from 69 percent in 1989 to 79 percent in 1997. This is higher than the usage rate for high school or college students in 1997. A compelling fact noted in this same study, however, is that elementary school students were far less likely than high school or college students to use home computers for schoolwork (Resource and Technology 04/00). It should be noted, on the other hand, that there was a proliferation of computer software games introduced onto the market specifically created to be educational. History, math, geography, spelling, the list was as endless as it was promising. Moreover, it was aimed at early learners from preschool through elementary school. As a parent, I can attest to the fact that the lure was irresistible.
As early as 1979, with Jerry Mander’s Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, this supplemental form of education came under close scrutiny. He pointed out the passive relationship viewers have with a television. The point of his book “was not to argue that there are no good programs on television. It was to point out that the consequences of television’s existence in out society are far more significant that its program content” (Haugsjaa, 04/10/00). One reviewer, in fact, suggested that anyone reading this book then rent the movie Network to understand how Mr. Mander’s book complements the manipulating and dehumanizing themes in this movie
In May 1999 Susan R. Johnson M.D. presented a paper as a senior project at Waldorf School of San Francisco. Her paper addressed effects of technology, television and computer technology specifically, on preschool and elementary age children. She carefully and fully describes the sequential development of a child’s brain from infancy through elementary school age. She emphasizes how important it is for children to have experiences that stimulate and integrate the senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch. We learn that we need to protect them from over stimulation, as they are quite literally sponges and do not, as of yet, have the brain capacity to filter out noxious sense experiences(3).
Dr. Johnson describes the importance of a connection that forms early in childhood between the right hemisphere which is more intellectual and responsive to visual images, and the left hemisphere. The left hemisphere specializes in analytical and sequential thinking and step-by-step logical reasoning(3).
The learning enhancement of computer technology and television with children is closely tied to the visual and auditory stimuli that these programs are meant to generate. Dr. Johnson, however, reminds us of studies on young children which consistently demonstrate that when simultaneously exposed to visual and sound stimuli, they focus on the visual, frequently not absorbing the sound content (Healey 1990)(6).
Her concern becomes clear as we realize that the focus on right hemisphere stimuli results in over stimulation with which a child cannot yet cope. Furthermore, this results in a lack of stimulus for the imagination in the left hemisphere. The child does not create the visual images he or she sees, even if they remember them. Answers are factually based but do not involve the perception or judgment that interaction with other humans and nature is known to foster. We learn that it is difficult to create a picture when we have already been shown the image. How can a child learn to discern the subtle nuances involved in face-to-face interaction from a person viewed on a monitor or screen? Technology can garner emotions, but only as an individual reaction, not as the energy and intelligence found in the “heart” of out brain. This is learned only from a child’s experience interacting face-to-face with another(7).
Dr. Johnson speaks about the importance of a crucial neurological pathway called the corpus callosum. It is a bridge between the right and left hemisphere and one of the latest maturing parts of a child’s brain. “This pathway provides the interplay between the analytic and intuitive thinking, and several neuropsychologists believe the poor development of this pathway affects the right and left hemispheres effective communication with each other and may be a cause of attention and leaning difficulties” (Healey 1990)(4).
And the connection comes around full circle. The content of technology programs is not the issue here. It is of the technology itself and the effect it has on children that must be carefully understood. Even with a closely regulated technology program, the importance of reading and the connection to nature, other people and to our senses cannot be overstated. Technology has a place in the elementary school classroom but it is best kept well regulated and minimal.
Works Cited
“Federally Supported Programs for the Disabled 1976-1998.” Digest of Educational Statistics, 1998; Chapter 2, Enrollments, Table 53, 04/05/00
“Federally Supported Programs for the Disabled 1976-1999.” Digest
of Educational Statistics, 1999; Elementary/Secondary Chapter,
Page 24, table 54, 04/10/00 <http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/majorpub.asp>
Haugsjaa, Erik. ‘Suburbinization of the Mind” online review of Four
Arguments for the Elimination of Television. 04/10/00
Healy, Jane. Endangered Minds: Why Children Don’t Think and
What We Can Do About It. 1990, New York, Simon and
Schuster
Johnson, Susan R. M.D. “Strangers in Our Homes: TV and Our
Children’s Minds”, 04/04/00
Kozlowski, Kim. “Teen Death Attributed To Ritalin”, Detroit News
Page 1A 04/17/00
Mander, Jerry. Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television.
1978, New York, William Morrow and Co.
“Resource and Technology/1999”. Digest of Educational Statistics
Chapter 7, 04/05/00
No comments:
Post a Comment