Computers in the Classroom

Abstract

This article presents information on the introduction of computers in the public school classroom and follows the progress of classroom computing through the subsequent decades. In the early 1990s, computers were rarely used in the classroom, but by 2009, 93 percent of all US public schools had computers with internet access in the classroom (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010). By 2019 essentially all US public schools (99 percent) had broadband internet connections (EducationSuperHighway, 2019). The traditional desktop computer of the early 1990s has also been largely replaced with laptops, smartphones, and tablets with wireless connectivity. There has been wide recognition that teacher professional development is an important component of integrating technology into instruction. Several national studies provide data on the use of computers and the Internet in schools. While there is a clear digital divide between traditionally disadvantaged students and more affluent students in terms of computer access at home, children's access to computers at school is much more evenly distributed, a fact often cited in pleas to policy makers to continue funding educational technology initiatives. In the 2020s media reports indicated not only the pervasiveness of information technology in schools but increased efficiency in teaching and enhanced learning outcomes. Despite these, questions continue to be raised about the possible negative consequences of overreliance on computers in the classroom.

Overview

There is little doubt that computers have made a dramatic change in the way people live, work, and learn. Computer speed and capacity have increased greatly over the years, and the price of ownership has gone down. Improved technology has also led to mobile computing devices such as laptops and smartphones that allow nearly constant access to the internet and the vast amount of information and social connectivity it includes. These changes have made computer technology almost ubiquitous in everyday life. As a result, many experts have suggested that knowledge of computer systems is crucial to professional success in many fields. It has also been suggested that computers can aid students of all ages in learning in a wide range of areas.

In the early 1990s, computers were rarely used in the classroom, and the student-computer ratio was about 1 student to 20 computers (Wenglinsky, 2005). At the beginning of the decade, there were two uses for computers in education: to learn about computers and to practice basic skills. Learning about computers later became known as computer literacy and included topics such as the history of computers, terminology, computer tools, programming, and uses of computers (Technology Integration, 2004). In the early 1990s, students usually went to a separate computer lab staffed with a technology teacher. Although the students had occasional access to computers, the regular classroom teachers did not. This was an issue for teacher professional development because they were not able to learn about how to use computers or to integrate them into their teaching.

By the late 1990s, the status of computers in schools changed dramatically. Most US schools had computers with CD-ROM drives and internet connections, and the ratio was 1 student to 5 computers (Wenglinsky, 2005). In addition, computers were routinely located in classrooms, or a computer lab was assembled on a portable cart that could be wheeled into the classroom. Gradually, teachers were learning how to use computers and integrate them into learning activities for their students (Technology Integration, 2004). In the 2020s, such investments were being reported as enhancing the student learning experience and outcomes. According to the International Journal of Communications Systems, computer-based gamification of learning can improve outcomes by 45%. When used alongside reading, this increase can be as high as 61%. An oft-cited statistic from Smoothwall shows that 96% of teachers indicated technology as having beneficial results of participation and learning.

Seven major uses of computers in education were identified in the earlier literature:

• Drill and practice,
• Tutorials,
• Problem solving,
• Simulation,
• Inquiry,
• Testing, and
• Programming (Varank, Tozoglu & Demirbilek, 2001).

However, researchers increasingly suggested that communication is an eighth important use now as most school computers gained access to the internet (National Trends, 2007). Despite the increasing presence of computers, there was still much controversy about the impact of computers on academic achievement, and some researchers even reported negative effects of technology on children's academic, social, emotional, and even physical development (Alliance for Childhood, 2004; Bielefeldt, 2005; Gow, 2004).

The International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (formerly the International Technology Educators Association) has periodically conducted surveys for the Technology for All Americans Project (TfAAP) and gathered longitudinal data on how computer literacy is addressed in schools (Moye & Dugger, 2012). Comparing the 2011 and 2007 results, there was an increase in the number of states that require technology education courses (93 percent in 2011 and 87 percent in 2007), yet there was a decrease in the number of technology education teachers. This demonstrates that school administrators believe technology education is very important to the overall learning experience. The increase in specific technology literacy programs and the decrease in the number of technology teachers may simply be a reflection of how much computer literacy is becoming embedded in core subject areas, rather than taught as a separate subject.

Applications

Internet Access. Internet access in US public schools was the subject of a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) report based on a spring 2009 Fast Response Survey System (Gray, Thomas, & Lewis, 2010). According to this survey, 95 percent of classrooms in US public schools had access to the internet in 2009, a huge increase over the 3 percent of school classrooms that were connected in 1994. A 2012 report by the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA), however, stated that nearly 80 percent of schools surveyed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reported that their current broadband connection was unable to meet their needs, and the same percentage of teachers who used online videos in their classrooms reported problems with and disruptions with streaming (Scott, 2012). As efforts continued to improve this situation, by 2015, the nonprofit organization EducationSuperHighway reported that 77 percent of school districts were meeting the FCC's standards as twenty million more students had access to high-speed broadband internet in the classroom than in 2013 (Camera, 2015). By 2019 EducationSuperHighway reported that 99 percent of school districts had high-speed broadband access, effectively eliminating the connectivity gap (EducationSuperHighway, 2019).

Wireless connections to the internet increasingly became the norm due to faster speeds, more flexibility in network configurations, ease of expansion, and lower costs (Walery, 2004). In addition, the ratio of public school students to instructional computers with internet access decreased from 3.8 students per computer in 2005 to 1.7 students per computer (Wells & Lewis, 2006; Gray, Thomas & Lewis, 2010). The first time NCES measured this ratio was in 1998, and at that time there were 12.1 students per computer.

Mobile Technology. In the early 2000s, handheld computers, or personal digital assistants (PDAs), were popular and were small enough to be held in one hand. In 2005, for instance, 19 percent of schools gave handheld computers to students or teachers, nearly double the number of schools that provided them just two years earlier. These were largely replaced by tablet computers in the 2010s. Technology company Apple claimed that just one year after the launch of its iPad tablet computer in 2010, over six hundred school districts across the country had implemented one-to-one programs in which at least one classroom in a school provided iPads for each student in the class to use throughout the day (USA Today, 2011). Such devices continued to increase in popularity in the following years, with generations of students becoming more familiar with mobile technology at home as well as school. Technological advances also made smartphones similar in functionality to tablets or even laptop computers, but schools generally did not adopt smartphones as tools provided to students.

Research has suggested that increasing the use of mobile computing in a student’s education can result in higher level thinking, more collaborative work, and greater involvement in the learning process (Bick, 2005). While reports were mixed as to whether this technology and specifically one-to-one programs help decrease gaps in achievement, researchers from Michigan State University conducted an analysis of ten years of investigations into these programs and determined that students involved in the programs had increased test scores in areas such as writing, math, and English (Zheng, 2016). Other researchers have expressed concern over how computer use in the classroom should be regulated. While access to computers has benefits such as the ability to take notes more efficiently and take advantage of enhanced textbooks, they also introduce greater potential for distraction, such as email, games, and social media sites (Carter, Greenberg, & Walker, 2017).

Another use of computers in the classroom is called Classroom Response Systems, or clickers (Gilbert, 2005). Students are given a remote control device, similar to a TV remote, and then individually and anonymously enter a response to a classroom teacher's question. The results of the students' votes are instantly available, and this allows for more student participation in a large lecture hall or collecting anonymous survey responses to sensitive topics. US schools and universities bought nearly one million clickers in 2004 (Gilbert, 2005). Most clickers are used in postsecondary institutions.

Online Courses. The presence of online courses also boomed in the early twentieth century, particularly in the postsecondary sector (Lee & Hien, 2007). By the early 2000s, technology had advanced, and broadcasting video and audio over the internet allowed students in a virtual classroom to participate together, which then led to the huge growth of online education opportunities. In 2006, over 3.5 million people were participating in online education in one form or another (Rasmussen College, 2011); by 2011, at least 77 percent of traditional “brick and mortar” universities were offering online coursework with approximately 46 percent of college graduates participating in at least one online course within the preceding decade (Pew, 2011). The National Center for Education Statistics reported that in 2018, more than 6.9 million students were enrolled in distance education courses ("Fast facts: Distance learning," 2018).

While distance learning includes that delivered by traditional teachers over the internet, algorithm-based educational programs with little or no direct guidance by human instructors grew in the late 2010s. Such systems were made possible by advances in machine learning that allowed software to better adapt to the needs of specific learners (Beard, 2020).

Online learning, also referred to as virtual or remote learning, became a major social issue during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that spread worldwide in 2020. Many schools were forced to halt or limit in-classroom instruction due to lockdowns and social distancing precautions intended to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Virtual learning through video calling and other systems was touted as a crucial way to maintain student engagement in schooling, and widespread efforts were made to improve access to devices and the internet. Yet with the growing importance of virtual classrooms, many parents or guardians as well as educators, psychologists, sociologists, and other observers worried about the potential impact of heightened computer use on children's learning processes and general development. The pandemic also highlighted the importance of school-provided computers, as many children in low-income households continued to lack access to technology at home (Common Sense, 2020).

Ubiquitous Computing. In early 2002, the National Technology Leadership Initiative (NTLI) held a conference to discuss the effects of ubiquitous computing in education (Van Hover, Berson, Bolick & Swan, 2006). The authors reasoned that based on Moore's Law, which says that computing power doubles every eighteen months while at the same time the cost is cut in half, every student would have a computer by the end of the decade. From their discussions they developed seven conclusions about ubiquitous computing, which seemed reasonable at the time. However, in 2006, Bull and Garofalo took another look at these conclusions and their underlying assumptions. They found that no special computer had emerged specifically for educational use, as predicted in 2002. Instead, cell phones had become the machine that combines multiple functions—communication device, Web browser, digital camera, personal digital assistant, and MP3 player. Bull and Garofalo (2006) also point out that more than half of all students create content on the internet, referred to as Web 2.0 applications. Contemporary students are at ease with posting digital images and videos, contributing to blogs, wikis, and podcasts, visiting social networking sites, and developing web pages. Computers are ubiquitous to students, but not in the way many observers initially imagined.

Issues

The Digital Divide. Several national studies provide data on the use of computers and the internet by students. According to the NCES, 94 percent of all children ages three through eighteen lived in a home with at least one computer in 2015, and about 61 percent accessed the internet. These numbers continued to generally rise into the 2020s. However, significant disparities have been correlated to factors such as household income, parents' educational level, and race and ethnicity. For example, Common Sense Media reported that, among children up to the age of eight, 95 percent of those in higher income households had home computer access and 94 percent had home internet access, while only 63 percent of those in lower-income households had home computer access and 74 percent had home internet access (Common Sense Media, 2020). Studies have consistently shown that children whose parents have a college degree or some postsecondary education are more likely to have access to a computer at home that children whose parents have less than a high school diploma. When the data is broken down by race/ethnicity, White and Asian children in the United States are more likely to have home computer access than Black, Hispanic, or American Indian/Alaska Native children (Child Trends, 2011; NCES, 2015).

This difference in access to technology and the lack of skills to use technology is commonly referred to as the digital divide (NTIA, 1999). Children's access to computers at school is much more evenly distributed, unlike the digital divide for access to home computers (DeBell & Chapman, 2006). School access to computers was found to be nearly identical regardless of parents' education level. Household income had little impact on school computer access as well, and ranged from a low of 80 percent for families with household income of $20,000 or less, to a high of 86 percent for families in the $35,000 to $50,000 group and families in the $75,000 or more categories. In addition, race/ethnicity accounted for only a 7 percent difference among groups. What is most notable about these statistics is how much students from disadvantaged backgrounds rely on schools for access to computers and the internet.

The Pew Internet & American Life Project produces reports that explore the impact of the internet on many different facets of American life. Some of the Pew reports are focused specifically on education, but others publish overall data about internet use in the United States. The Pew general population statistics on internet use have mirrored results reported by NCES, showing the persistence of a digital divide for the traditionally disadvantaged population (DeBell & Chapman, 2006). For example, higher household incomes and higher educational attainment coincide with greater use of the internet for the population at large. However, Pew also reports that youth increases the possibility of internet use, and it is highest among adult users eighteen to twenty-nine years old and teens fourteen to seventeen years old respectively (Pew Internet, 2014; 2012).

The point is made by Prensky (2001) that modern children have never known a world without the internet. He describes today's youth as digital natives whereas those who were over thirty years old at the time of his writing are digital immigrants. Many of the digital immigrants are reluctant to leave what is familiar and are much slower to adopt new technologies. Furthermore, a Pew 2001 study (Levin & Arafeh, 2002) emphasized the widening gap between internet savvy students and their schools. Students think about and use the internet in ways that are closely tied to their activities of daily living, including school work. However, the study suggested that teachers were not using the internet enough to communicate with their students or access information, and "students report that there is a substantial disconnect between how they use the Internet for school and how they use the Internet during the school day and under teacher direction" (Levin & Arafeh, 2002, p. iii).

The digital divide is greatest when viewed from a global perspective, as tens of millions of children in the developing world receive no primary education at all, let alone get access to computers ("Making sure", 2013; One Laptop, 2007). To address this issue, Nicholas Negroponte, founder and director of the $100 Laptop Project, set out in 2007 to give one laptop to every child in developing countries in order to help them compete in the global economy reasoning that computers help children learn to learn. However, the initiative struggled to reach its price goal and ran into numerous other technical and administrative challenges, and despite distributing millions of laptops in various countries it was widely considered a failure by the time the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) foundation disbanded in 2014 (Jacobs, 2020). Nevertheless, some have cited the project with helping to drive down the costs of mobile computing technology, and the wave of low-cost laptops and tablets that largely overshadowed OLPC's efforts had a similar effect of expanding internet access in many developing regions.

Internet Safety. One problem with giving children access to the internet is the potential for harm to students who may find inappropriate material or be susceptible to predators. The federal government E-rate program, established in 1996 to discount internet access and networking expenses for poorer schools, required its schools to have an internet safety policy that included filtering or blocking protocols (Wells & Lewis, 2006). However, even schools that were not eligible for E-rate discounts often implemented internet safety protocols, and the majority of schools with internet access use various technologies to control student access to inappropriate material (AASL, 2012).

Teacher Training. There are numerous studies that have linked teachers' experience and comfort level using technology with their willingness and ability to integrate technology into teaching and learning (Ivers, 2002; Meade & Dugger, 2004; NCES, 2005; Rother, 2003; Papanastasiou, 2003; Wenglinksy, 2005; Whale, 2006; Yang, 2002). In addition, teachers are in the best position to observe the impact of technology on teaching and learning in their classrooms (Wenglinsky, 2005). CDW Government, Inc. (CDW-G) commissioned a nationwide survey of K–12 teachers to assess technology's value in education (Rother, 2003). That study found that 86 percent of teachers believed that in-class computers improve academic performance, and 72 percent of teachers felt students who have access to computers at home have a major advantage. However, only 46 percent of teachers considered themselves intermediate computer users and only 40 percent described themselves as somewhat advanced. Ivers (2002) concluded that an intermediate level of computer literacy is sufficient for teachers to use computers as a management tool, but not enough for teachers to integrate technology into their teaching.

A 2009 survey (US Department of Education, 2010, p. 3) conducted by NCES and the Institute of Education Sciences on the use of educational technology showed 97 percent of teachers had one or more computers in the classroom every day, and Internet access was available for 93 percent of those computers. Despite this, 40 percent reported that they or their students used the computers during instructional time. Almost all teachers reported they used their school or district network for entering or viewing grades (94 percent), attendance records (93 percent), and inputting student assessment results (90 percent).

Seventy-six percent of teachers surveyed in 2003 (Rother, 2003) reported they felt they need more computer training. During the 2009–2010 school year, however, 88 percent of teachers who had participated in technology-related professional development reported that it “supported the goals and standards of [their] state, district, and school” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009).

As more and more teachers progress from being just computer literate (intermediate users) to integrating technology into teaching and learning, public policy will reflect the pressure for more funding from parents, students, and teachers (Wolf, 2006). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which was not reauthorized after its expiration in September 2007 but in practice remained in effect until it was ultimately replaced (with several measures intact) by the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015, required state applications for technology funds to contain "a description of how the State Education Agency will ensure ongoing integration of technology into school curricula and instructional strategies in all schools, so that technology will be fully integrated into curricular and instructional strategies by December 31, 2006" (Strauss, 2013; Technology Integration, 2004, p. 12). In other words, the federal government demanded that schools use technology for teaching and learning.

The 2004 national education technology plan, titled “Toward a New Golden Age in American Education: How the Internet, the Law, and Today’s Students are Revolutionizing Expectations,” had the stated goals of improving teacher training in technology, encouraging school districts to incorporate high-speed broadband internet access in school buildings, and providing government support to develop ways to incorporate the use of digital textbooks and online instruction/e-learning and virtual schools into the national educational fabric. The No Child Left Behind legislation of 2002 was addressed, as the new plan stressed the need to level the technological playing field for all learners in the country (Office of Educational Technology, 2010b).

Funding and Government Involvement. Ongoing funding requirements for educational technology initiatives have become a major issue for most states (Wolf, 2006). In 2006, after years of budget cuts to the Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) Program, the administration of US president George W. Bush proposed to completely eliminate EETT (Bush to Ed Tech, 2007). At the same time, the State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA) reported that the states were meeting NCLB Title II D goals by increasing professional development for teachers, documenting the impact of their programs, setting priorities, and sharing funding with state-led initiatives (National Trends, 2007).

In 2010, President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan presented the National Education Technology Plan 2010 (NETP), which was titled “Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology.” The overall goals of the plan were to raise the number of two- and four-year college graduates from 41 percent to 60 percent by 2020 and to “close the achievement gap” so that every US student graduated from high school and was prepared to succeed in a career or in college (Office of Educational Technology, 2010a).

Three years later, the Obama Administration announced the ConnectED initiative to build high-speed digital Internet connections to the nation’s schools and libraries with the aim to connect 99 percent of all US students to high-speed internet by 2018. Additionally, ConnectED also promised

• "teachers and administrators would be provided with training and support to incorporate technology in the classroom,
• "new teacher resources for technology would be developed
• "tech companies would be encouraged to develop “feature-rich” devices that were competitively priced with textbooks,
• "encourage educational software development to provide college- and career-ready applications, and
• "aim to produce high school graduates with the skills necessary to compete and succeed in college or in the workforce (Meyer, 2013).

In 2012 the nonprofit organization EducationSuperHighway was formed with the central goal of improving internet access for all US public schools. It received support from every state government as well as numerous philanthropic and business partners, and worked to bring together all stakeholders on the issue. In its 2019 report, the organization declared success as 99 percent of US schools had broadband internet access (EducationSuperHighway, 2019).

Conclusion

Linking technology use with academic achievement is an important goal for politicians and funding agencies. However, the research does not always find that using technology improves academic achievement (Papanastasiou, 2003; Wenglinksy, 2005; Jacobs, 2020). In addition, sometimes the popular press paints an unflattering picture of educational technology use. Fletcher (2005) comments that the media is often less than positive when writing about educational technology, but he believes educators should listen to the skeptics to improve planning and implementation and feels there is more to educational technology than test scores. Yang (2002) believes computers can have a positive impact on learning in science, but it is the teacher's judgment and expertise using the technology that matters the most. Many authors support the use of constructivist or learner-centered approaches when integrating technology because this method has been shown to promote higher order thinking (Fletcher, 2005a; Foti, 2005; Hopson, Simms & Kenezek, 2001; Varank et al., 2001; Yang, 2002). Finally, many observers suggest that educators have not yet fully tapped the power of technology, and they can do much more to embed assessments in the technology itself and respond to the demand for more accountability (Peters, 2003).

Terms & Concepts

Blog: A short form of "web log," describing an online journal. Bloggers (people who contribute to a blog) do not need to have substantial technical knowledge to update a blog, making the platform accessible to many users.

Constructivism: A broad framework and philosophy of education where learning is seen as an active process of knowledge construction. Constructivism is often contrasted with objectivist models, such as behaviorism, in which learning is a process of conditioning and the mind is seen as an empty vessel that the teacher passively fills (i.e., teacher-centered approach). Constructivist approaches are often described as learner-centered because the learner has control over the learning process.

Digital Divide: The gap that exists between those who have access to and the capability to use modern information technology, and those who do not. For example, this gulf can exist between rural and urban populations, females and males, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, or developed and developing countries.

Mobile devices: Handheld electronic devices such as tablet computers and smartphones. They are popular because of the ease of accessing information from any place at any time.

No Child Left Behind of 2001 (NCLB): The NCLB Act strengthened Title I accountability by requiring the states to implement statewide accountability systems for all public schools and students. The act set challenging state standards for reading and mathematics, and annually tested all students in grades 3–8. In addition, annual statewide progress objectives ensured that all groups of students reached proficiency within twelve years. Test results needed to be disaggregated by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to ensure that no group was left behind. Schools that did not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) were required to take corrective action; on the other hand, the Education Department would reward schools that met or exceed AYP objectives. The act eventually drew heavy bipartisan criticism and was largely replaced by 2015.

Personal Digital Assistant (PDA): A type of handheld computer with various functions typically aimed at personal data organization (e.g., calendar, contact lists, etc.). PDAs also are called palmtops, handheld computers, and pocket computers. Largely superseded by smartphones and tablets, they remain in use in some specialized applications.

Podcast: A term for spoken-word digital audio in the form of a series of episodes that a listener can stream or download. The act of creating a podcast is known as "podcasting."

Social Networking Sites: Online platforms that allow users to interact with other users in a social manner, often based on shared interests or relationships. Well-known and popular examples, such as Facebook and Twitter, are seen as highly influential on not only the way people use the internet, but also on culture and society as a whole.

Web 2.0: Refers to the seeming second generation of web-based services—version 2.0 of the web. Web 2.0 sites tend to emphasize collaboration and sharing among users as well as personalized interactions.

Wiki: A term from the Hawaiian language that means “fast.” A wiki, which is a collaborative website, allows anyone to edit content. The most notable example of a wiki is Wikipedia—a free online encyclopedia. However, accuracy is always a concern as anyone can edit or add material at any time.

Bibliography

(2004). Alliance for Childhood. Tech tonic: Towards a new literacy of technology. Retrieved July 17, 2007, from http://www.allianceforchildhood.net/projects/computers/pdf_files/tech_tonic.pdf.

Brooks, C. (2023, Mar. 5). Cybersecurity trends & statistics for 2023; what you need to know. Forbes. Retrieved June 12, 2023, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckbrooks/2023/03/05/cybersecurity-trends--statistics-for-2023-more-treachery-and-risk-ahead-as-attack-surface-and-hacker-capabilities-grow/?sh=7b6b125b19db.

Averill, D. S. (2005). Using mindtools in education. T H E Journal, 32, 30. Retrieved July 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16893690&site=ehost-live.

(2012). Filtering in schools: AASL executive summary. American Association of School Librarians. Retrieved October 16, 2014 from http://www.ala.org/aasl/research/slc/2012/filtering.

Azzam, A. M. (2005). Digital opportunity. Educational Leadership, 63, 89–92. Retrieved July 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19270029&site=ehost-live.

Bahr, M. W., Gouwens, D. A., & Schuh, G. (2012). Evaluation of handheld computers for direct systematic classroom observation. Computers in the Schools, 29, 268–284. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=79988079.

Baker, M. M., Bernard, F. X., & Dumez-Féroc, I. I. (2012). Integrating computer-supported collaborative learning into the classroom: The anatomy of a failure. , Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 161–176. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=73283829.

Bakia, M., Mitchell, K., & Yang, G. (2007). State strategies and practices for educational technology: Volume 1--examining the enhancing education through technology program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Baruffati, A. (2023). Technology In Education Statistics: 2023 Trends. Gitnux. Retrieved June 14, 20203, from https://blog.gitnux.com/technology-in-education-statistics/.

Beard, A. (2020, March 19). Can computers ever replace the classroom? The Guardian. Retrieved June 22, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/19/can-computers-ever-replace-the-classroom

Berque, D. (2005). Is the pen mightier than the mouse? T H E Journal, 33, 24–25. Retrieved July 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19094087&site=ehost-live

Bick, A. (2005). Academic achievement enhanced by personal digital assistant use. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED490065).

Bielefeldt, T. (2005). Computers and student learning: Interpreting the multivariate analysis of PISA 2000. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37, 339–347. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18566797&site=ehost-live.

Bull, G., & Garofalo, J. (2006). Commentary: Ubiquitous computing revisited—A new perspective. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6, 271–274. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21501300&site=ehost-live.

(2007). Bush to Ed Tech industry: EETT's success makes it expendable.T H E Journal, 34,12. Retrieved July 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=24823285&site=ehost-live.

Camera, L. (2015, November 19). More schools have access to high-speed broadband than ever. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/11/19/more-schools-have-access-to-high-speed-broadband-than-ever.

Carter, S. P., Greenberg, K., & Walker, M. S. (2017). Should professors ban laptops? How classroom computer use affects student learning. Education Next, (174), 68–74. Retrieved January 5, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=125076083&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Chavous, K. (2023, May 17). How can we protect our students online? Stride Insight. Retrieved June 14, 2023,from https://www.stridelearning.com/insights/how-can-we-protect-our-students-online.html.

(2013, August). Should professors ban laptops? How classroom computer use affects student learning. Child Trends. Retrieved October 8, 2014, from http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/69%5FComputer%5FUse.pdf.

Coleman, L., Gibson, P., Cotten, S. R., Howell-Moroney, M., & Stringer, K. (2016). Integrating computing across the curriculum. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(2), 275–294. Retrieved January 5, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=113760517&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

(2020). The Common Sense census: media use by kids age zero to eight. Common Sense Media. . Retrieved June 11, 2021, from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/uploads/research/2020‗zero‗to‗eight‗census‗final‗web.pdf.

DeBell, M., & Chapman, C. (2006). Computer and Internet use by students in 2003 (No. NCES 2006-065). Jessup, MD: ED Pubs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED493283).

(2019). State of the state: The classroom connectivity gap is closed EducationSuperHighway. Retrieved Jun 11, 2021, from https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/esh-sots-pdfs/2019%20State%20of%20the%20States.pdf.

(2018). Fast facts: Distance learning. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved June 22, 2020, from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80.

Finkel, E. (2013). Bridging the new digital divide. District Administration, 49, 62–65. Retrieved October 16, 2014 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88841189.

Fletcher, G. H. (2005). Assessing technology integration. T H E Journal, 32 , 2–4. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16893677&site=ehost-live.

Fletcher, G. H. (2005). Surviving the media's war on educational technology. T H E Journal, 33 , 6. Retrieved July 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19132665&site=ehost-live.

Foti, S. (2005). The rise and fall of educational technology: Did we miss the point? T H E Journal, 33 , 46–47. Retrieved July 19, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19094092&site=ehost-live.

Gilbert, A. (2005). New for back-to-school: 'clickers'. CNet News.com. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://news.cnet.com/New-for-back-to-school-clickers/2100-1041%5F3-5819171.html.

Gow, P. (2004). Technology & the culture of learning. Independent School, 63 , 18–26. Retrieved July 19, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18075590&site=ehost-live.

Gray, L., Thomas, N., & Lewis, L. (2010, May). Teachers’ use of educational technology in US public schools: 2009. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010040.pdf.

Hoffman, A. M. (2013). Students' perceptions of on-task behavior and classroom engagement in a 1:1 iPad school. English Leadership Quarterly, 36, 9–18. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91548947.

Hopson, M. H., Simms, R. L., & Knezek, G. A. (2001). Using a technology-enriched environment to improve higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34 , 109–120. Retrieved July 19, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16830744&site=ehost-live.

Irving, K. E. (2006). The impact of educational technology on student achievement: Assessment of and for learning. Science Educator, 15, 13–20. Retrieved July 19, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22560510&site=ehost-live.

Ivers, K. S. (2002). Changing teachers' perceptions and use of technology in the classroom. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED467095).

Jacobs, T. (2019, June 6). Computers in the classroom may do more harm than good—if they're overused. Pacific Standard. Retrieved June 22, 2020, from https://psmag.com/education/computers-in-the-classroom-may-do-more-harm-than-good.

(2004). Children, the digital divide, and federal policy. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved July 22, 2007, from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/7090.cfm.

(2011, April). The digital divide and access to health information online. Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8176.pdf.

Lee, Y., & Hien, N. (2007). Get your degree from an educational atm: An empirical study of online education. International Journal of E-Learning, 6 , 31–40.

Levin, D., & Arafeh, S. (2002). The digital disconnect: The widening gap between internet-savvy students and their schools. Pew Research Center. Retrieved July 21, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Schools_Internet_Report.pdf

Love, P. (2006). Meta-analysis: Challenges and opportunities. T H E Journal, 33 , 22–24. Retrieved September 19, 2007 from EBSCO Online Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=21550955&site=ehost-live.

(2013, March 22). Making sure children in developing countries get a good education. Gov.uk. Retrieved October 16, 2014 from https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/making-sure-children-in-developing-countries-get-a-good-education.

Meade, S. D., & Dugger, J. E. (2004). Reporting on the status of technology education in the US. Technology Teacher, 64, 29–35. Retrieved December 13, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=14690183.

Mitchell, K., Bakia, M., & Yang, G. (2007). State strategies and practices for educational technologies: Volume 2--supporting mathematics instruction with educational technology. Jessup, MD: ED Pubs. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED495428).

Moye, Johnny J., & Dugger, William E., Jr. (2012, May/June). The status of technology and engineering education in the United States: A fourth report of the findings from the states (2011–12). Technology and Engineering Teacher. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.iteaconnect.org/TAA/LinkedFiles/Articles/TTTpdf/2011-12Volume71/StatusofTEE.Moye.Dugger.Starkweather.2012.pdf.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Computer technology in the public school classroom: Teacher perspectives. (2005). (Issue Brief No. 2005-083). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

(2009). Teachers’ use of educational technology in US public schools: 2009. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010040.pdf.

(1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Retrieved July 22, 2007, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html.

(2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. U.S. Department of Educaton. Retrieved December 2, 2013, from http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/netp-2010.

(2010). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the Internet, the law, and today's students are revolutionizing expectations. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved December 2, 2013, from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/index.html.

Papanastasiou, E. C., Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2003). Can computer use hurt science achievement? The USA results from PISA. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 12, 325–332. Retrieved July 19, 2007, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16859019&site=ehost-live.

Peters, L. (2003). Testing time: The need for a new focus on technology and results. T H E Journal, 30 , 28. Retrieved July 19, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9927685&site=ehost-live.

(2011, August 28). The digital revolution and higher education: College presidents, public differ on value of online learning.Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved October 8, 2014 from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP-Online-Learning.pdf.

(2014). Internet users in 2014. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved October 8, 2014 from http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internet-use/latest-stats.

(2021, April 7). Internet/broadband fact sheet. Pew Research Center. .Retrieved June 11, 2021, from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants.. Marc Prensky. Retrieved July 22, 2007, from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf.

(2011, April 9). The evolution of online learning technologies. . Rasmussen College. Retrieved December 2, 2013, from http://www.rasmussen.edu/student-life/blogs/online-learning/evolution-of-online-learning-technologies/.

Rother, C. (2003). Technology's value in education.T H E Journal, 31, 35–38. Retrieved July 19, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=12393867&site=ehost-live.

Scott, Dylan. (2012, May 21). K–12 education’s broadband Internet needs continue to grow. Governing. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://www.governing.com/blogs/view/gov-k-12-educations-broadband-internet-needs-continue-to-grow.html

(2007). SETDA's national trends report 2007. State Educational Technology Directors Association. Retrieved July 17, 2007, from http://www.setda.org/web/guest/nationaltrendsreport.

Strauss, V. (2013, November 27). 'No one really cares, do they?'The Washington Post. Retrieved October 8, 2014 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/11/27/no-one-really-cares-do-they.

Stuht, A., & Colcord, C. (2011). Tech, teachers & teens: Bridging the divide. Leadership, 40, 26–30. Retrieved October 16, 2014 from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=60167696

(2004). Technology integration. T H E Journal, 31,12. Retrieved July 17, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=14088678&site=ehost-live.

(2011, September 4). Many US schools adding iPads, trimming textbooks. USA Today. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-09-03/Many-US-schools-adding-iPads-trimming-textbooks/50251238/1.

(2010). Teachers’ use of educational technology in US public schools: 2009. US Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=46

Van Hover, S., Berson, M., Bolick, C., & Swan, K. (2006). Implications of ubiquitous computing for the social studies curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6 , 275–283. Retrieved July 17, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21501301&site=ehost-live.

Varank, I., Tozoglu, D., & Demirbilek, M. (2001). Issues in integrating computers into classroom. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED470178).

Walery, D. (2004). Wireless technology in k-12 education. T H E Journal, 31, 48. Retrieved July 17, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=14099209&site=ehost-live.

Wells, J., & Lewis, L. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-1995 (No. 2007-020). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Technology and achievement the bottom line. Educational Leadership, 63 , 29–32. Retrieved July 17, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19270012&site=ehost-live.

Wexler, N. (2019, December 19). How classroom technology is holding students back. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved June 22, 2020, from https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/12/19/131155/classroom-technology-holding-students-back-edtech-kids-education/.

Whale, D. (2006). Technology skills as a criterion in teacher evaluation.Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 14, 61–74. Retrieved July 17, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19554794&site=ehost-live.

Wolf, M. A. (2006). Spread the word: Ed tech matters. T H E Journal, 33, 48. Retrieved July 17, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=23967977&site=ehost-live.

Yang, C. (2002). Integration of laptops into a K-12 learning environment: A case study of a science teacher in the middle school. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2002 (pp. 2097–2102). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Zheng, B. (2016, July 29). How beneficial are "one-to-one" laptop programs in schools? The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Making-a-difference/Change-Agent/2016/0729/How-beneficial-are-one-to-one-laptop-programs-in-schools.

Suggested Reading

Brady, K. P. (2012). Technology in schools. Sage Publications. Retrieved October 16, 2014 from EBSCO online database eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=525927&ebv=EB&ppid=pp%5FCove.r.

Buabeng-Andoh, C., & Totimeh, F. (2012). Teachers' innovative use of computer technologies in classroom: A case of selected Ghanaian schools. International Journal of Education & Development Using Information & Communication Technology, 8, 22–34. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88946368.

Dorfman, J. (2016). Music teachers’ experiences in one-to-one computing environments. Journal of Research in Music Education, 64(2), 159–178. Retrieved January 5, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=116153872&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

(2004). Children, the digital divide, and federal policyKaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved July 19, 2007, from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia091604pkg.cfm.

Lazarus, W., Wainer, A., & Lipper, L. (2005). Measuring digital opportunity for America's children: where we stand and where we go from here. Content Bank. Retrieved July 16, 2007, from http://www.contentbank.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Research_From_The_Childrens_Partnership&CONTENTID=8044&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

Manessis, D. (2013). Examining early childhood education students' attitudes toward educational computer games in Kindergarten. Proceedings of the European Conference on Games Based Learning, 369–377. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91950998.

(2005). Trends 2005.Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved July 16, 2007, from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/Internet%5fStatus%5f2005.pdf.