Technology Literacy

I read an article that focused on how we evaluate an educational technology’s effectiveness in schools. It gives a framework that can be followed to critique a school’s practices. Federal legislation in the United States currently mandates that technology be integrated into school curricula because of the popular belief that learning is enhanced through the use of technology. (Davies, 2011)

The proposed framework for understanding technological literacy involves three levels: (1) awareness, (2) praxis (i.e., training), and (3) phronesis (i.e., practical competence and practical wisdom). These levels are most accurately represented as a continuum that involves a cycle of continual reeducation. Just as higher levels of cognitive development require some level of proficiency at lower levels, the highest levels of technological literacy require students to move through the lower levels. (Davies, 2011) After reading this part, I then continued to read and it made me think. He states that so often we consider a student’s technology literacy based on technology adoption. Just because you adopt a certain technology does not necessarily mean there is a true understanding of technology literacy.

What is technology literacy? Some examples are stated in the journal. Hansen (2003) has defined technology literacy as “an individual’s abilities to adopt, adapt, invent, and evaluate technology to positively affect his or her life, community, and environment” (p. 117). Eisenberg & Johnson (2002) suggested that a technologically literate person can “use technology as a tool for organization, communication, research, and problem solving” (p. 1). (Davies, 2011) This makes sense and a child or student needs to have technology that they can manipulate and relate to what they are learning. Without that higher order thinking, the technology is not an advantage.

This article also states that there is a large assumption that because our students may have been exposed to technology more than their parents, that they are therefore better equipped to handle the technology and have a true understanding of it. That is not necessarily true. He also discusses “Technology native and technology immigrants.” Technology natives may still need explicit instruction in order to perform at the highest levels. Technology immigrants will need more training.

Davies, R. S. (2011). Understanding technology literacy: A framework for evaluating educational technology integration.TechTrends, 55(5), 45-52. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-011-0527-3

Common Core's Effects on Technology

I read an interesting article on how common core standards will affect the future of ed-tech spending. The first portion of the article addressed how the lowering costs of technology will continue to make it more accessible to the classroom. As technology becomes more affordable and powerful, as well as less threatening to K-12 educators, market players, and observers predict the next wave of ed-tech investments will center on digitally delivered personalized instruction and professional development targeted at the common-core standards and assessments. (Education Week, 2014)

Some districts it said are already investing much money into technology to create a blended learning model. They also discussed how some districts have shifted their thinking to create a program where it relates to common core.

The final part of the article was most interesting to me. They said as of 2012-2013 school year only 23 percent of districts nationwide had implemented a 1-1 environment. Many districts desire a 1-1 initiative but are “nowhere close to it now.” I’m curious to see how that number has changed and what types of gains they have noticed in their classrooms.

Common core raises questions on future of ed-tech spending. (2014). Education Week, 33(35), 12-12, 13. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1539270231?accountid=26354