research questions about technology in the classroom

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

What 126 studies say about education technology

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

In recent years, there has been widespread excitement around the transformative potential of technology in education. In the United States alone, spending on education technology has now exceeded $13 billion . Programs and policies to promote the use of education technology may expand access to quality education, support students’ learning in innovative ways, and help families navigate complex school systems.

However, the rapid development of education technology in the United States is occurring in a context of deep and persistent inequality . Depending on how programs are designed, how they are used, and who can access them, education technologies could alleviate or aggravate existing disparities. To harness education technology’s full potential, education decision-makers, product developers, and funders need to understand the ways in which technology can help — or in some cases hurt — student learning.

To address this need, J-PAL North America recently released a new publication summarizing 126 rigorous evaluations of different uses of education technology. Drawing primarily from research in developed countries, the publication looks at randomized evaluations and regression discontinuity designs across four broad categories: (1) access to technology, (2) computer-assisted learning or educational software, (3) technology-enabled nudges in education, and (4) online learning.

This growing body of evidence suggests some areas of promise and points to four key lessons on education technology.

First, supplying computers and internet alone generally do not improve students’ academic outcomes from kindergarten to 12th grade, but do increase computer usage and improve computer proficiency. Disparities in access to information and communication technologies can exacerbate existing educational inequalities. Students without access at school or at home may struggle to complete web-based assignments and may have a hard time developing digital literacy skills.

Broadly, programs to expand access to technology have been effective at increasing use of computers and improving computer skills. However, computer distribution and internet subsidy programs generally did not improve grades and test scores and in some cases led to adverse impacts on academic achievement. The limited rigorous evidence suggests that distributing computers may have a more direct impact on learning outcomes at the postsecondary level.

Second, educational software (often called “computer-assisted learning”) programs designed to help students develop particular skills have shown enormous promise in improving learning outcomes, particularly in math. Targeting instruction to meet students’ learning levels has been found to be effective in improving student learning, but large class sizes with a wide range of learning levels can make it hard for teachers to personalize instruction. Software has the potential to overcome traditional classroom constraints by customizing activities for each student. Educational software programs range from light-touch homework support tools to more intensive interventions that re-orient the classroom around the use of software.

Most educational software that have been rigorously evaluated help students practice particular skills through personalized tutoring approaches. Computer-assisted learning programs have shown enormous promise in improving academic achievement, especially in math. Of all 30 studies of computer-assisted learning programs, 20 reported statistically significant positive effects, 15 of which were focused on improving math outcomes.

Third, technology-based nudges — such as text message reminders — can have meaningful, if modest, impacts on a variety of education-related outcomes, often at extremely low costs. Low-cost interventions like text message reminders can successfully support students and families at each stage of schooling. Text messages with reminders, tips, goal-setting tools, and encouragement can increase parental engagement in learning activities, such as reading with their elementary-aged children.

Middle and high schools, meanwhile, can help parents support their children by providing families with information about how well their children are doing in school. Colleges can increase application and enrollment rates by leveraging technology to suggest specific action items, streamline financial aid procedures, and/or provide personalized support to high school students.

Online courses are developing a growing presence in education, but the limited experimental evidence suggests that online-only courses lower student academic achievement compared to in-person courses. In four of six studies that directly compared the impact of taking a course online versus in-person only, student performance was lower in the online courses. However, students performed similarly in courses with both in-person and online components compared to traditional face-to-face classes.

The new publication is meant to be a resource for decision-makers interested in learning which uses of education technology go beyond the hype to truly help students learn. At the same time, the publication outlines key open questions about the impacts of education technology, including questions relating to the long-term impacts of education technology and the impacts of education technology on different types of learners.

To help answer these questions, J-PAL North America’s Education, Technology, and Opportunity Initiative is working to build the evidence base on promising uses of education technology by partnering directly with education leaders.

Education leaders are invited to submit letters of interest to partner with J-PAL North America through its  Innovation Competition . Anyone interested in learning more about how to apply is encouraged to contact initiative manager Vincent Quan .

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• J-PAL Education, Technology, and Opportunity Initiative
• Education, Technology, and Opportunity Innovation Competition
• Article: "Will Technology Transform Education for the Better?"
• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab
• Department of Economics

Related Topics

• School of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences
• Education, teaching, academics
• Technology and society
• Computer science and technology

Related Articles

J-PAL North America calls for proposals from education leaders

J-PAL North America’s Education, Technology, and Opportunity Innovation Competition announces inaugural partners

New learning opportunities for displaced persons

J-PAL North America announces new partnerships with three state and local governments

A new way to measure women’s and girls’ empowerment in impact evaluations

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

A biomedical engineer pivots from human movement to women’s health

Read full story →

MIT tops among single-campus universities in US patents granted

A new way to detect radiation involving cheap ceramics

A crossroads for computing at MIT

Growing our donated organ supply

New AI method captures uncertainty in medical images

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Part iii: bringing technology into the classroom.

Given the degree to which AP and NWP teachers are embracing and using digital tools, it is not surprising that they are making these tools a key part of their teaching practices.  In addition to desktop and laptop computers and classroom projectors, significant portions of these teachers report cell phones, digital cameras and recorders, e-readers and tablet computers being part of the learning experience.  Yet they also note obstacles they face in using digital tools effectively in the classroom, ranging from time constraints to school internet filters.

73% of AP and NWP teachers say cell phones have become part of their classroom teaching and assignments

While laptop and desktop computers, and the projectors connected to them, continue to top the list of digital tools being used by teachers and students, they are now joined by cell phones and smartphones as a fairly common educational tool.  Almost three-quarters of AP and NWP teachers (73%) say that they and/or their students use their mobile phones as a learning device in the classroom or to complete assignments.  This is comparable to the percent who say they and their students make use of computer carts.

In addition to cell phones, about two-thirds of AP and NWP teachers note that digital cameras (other than those on phones) are used in their classes, and just over half say the same is true for video recorders.  Slightly fewer, but still a sizeable percentage, report that they or their students are using e-readers (45%) and tablet computers (43%) in the classroom or to complete assignments.

The popularity of cell phones as an educational tool coincides with the rising popularity of cell phones among all Americans, including teens. The most recent Pew Internet report on cell phone use among 12-17 year-olds shows that as of July, 2011, 77% of 12-17 year-olds had a cell phone. 8 Moreover, some 23% of all 12-17 year-olds say their cell phone is a smartphone.  Smartphone ownership is highest among older teens: 31% of 14-17 year-olds have a smartphone, compared with just 8% of those ages 12-13. At that time, there were no significant differences in smartphone ownership (versus regular cell phones) by the teen’s race, ethnicity, or household income. Teens whose parents have a college education were slightly more likely than teens whose parents have a high school diploma or less to have a smartphone (26% vs. 19%).

Among AP and NWP teachers, teachers of students from higher income households are more likely to report that they or their students use tablet computers and e-readers as part of the learning process.  The difference is particularly pronounced in the case of tablet computers, where more than half of teachers of upper income students (56%) say these tools are used, compared with 37% of teachers of the lowest income students.  The difference in e-reader use between lower income students and higher income students is also fairly pronounced, with a 14 percentage point difference between teachers of the highest and lowest income students.

The use of e-readers and cell phones as a learning tool varies by the subject matter being taught.  It is not surprising that English and Language Arts teachers are the most likely to report e-readers being part of the learning environment.  Math teachers, in contrast, are particularly unlikely to say that they or their students use cell phones in the learning process.

Digital tools are being used by students to conduct research, download and submit assignments, edit work, and collaborate with each other

Topping the list of activities students engage in via the internet and digital tools is “doing research or searching for information online” which 95% of teachers say their students do and which was the focus of the first report in this series. 9  Apart from finding information online, the internet and digital tools are used most often by teachers to have students access (79%) and submit (76%) assignments online.  More interactive online learning activities, such as developing wikis, engaging in online discussions, and editing their own or others’ work using collaborative platforms such as GoogleDocs, are employed by fewer teachers in the sample.

Some groups of AP and NWP teachers are more likely to employ the more collaborative online tools asked about in the survey. For instance, the youngest teachers in this group (those under age 35) are the most likely to have students develop or share work on a website, wiki or blog (45% v. 34% of teachers age 55 and older).  They are also more likely than the oldest teachers to have students participate in online discussions (45% v. 32% of teachers age 55 and older) and use collaborative web-based tools such as GoogleDocs to edit work (41% v. 34% of teachers age 55 and older).  Middle school teachers (those teaching grades 6-8) are the most likely to have students develop and share work on wikis, webpages or blogs. Just under half of middle school teachers (47%) have their students use these collaborative tools, compared with 41% of 9 th -10 th  grade teachers and 35% of 11 th -12 th  grade teachers.

One could argue that some subjects lend themselves more easily to these types of online collaborative tools, and survey results reflect this.  English teachers are the most likely to say they have students use these types of tools, often by a wide margin over teachers of other subjects.  Conversely, math teachers are least likely to make use of these tools.

Cell phones as a classroom tool for instant information

As noted in the first report in this series, teachers noted in both the survey and focus groups how cell phones have become part of the learning experience.  Asked whether their students use cell phones for any of five specific learning-related functions, the most popular was students using a cell phone “to look up information in class,” cited by 42% of the AP and NWP teachers who completed the survey.  This was followed closely by students using mobile phones to “take pictures or record video to use in class assignments” (38%).

The impact of cell phones is being felt less by teachers in rural areas than those teaching in urban or suburban schools.  Just 28% of teachers in rural schools report students using phones to look up information in class, and fully 64% say students are not permitted to have cell phones in class.  In contrast, 47% of AP and NWP teachers in urban schools say their students use cell phones to look up information in class, and just 46% say students cannot have cell phones in class.  Likewise, among suburban teachers, 46% report students using cell phones to look things up in class and 45% report students not being permitted to have their phones in class.

In terms of students’ socioeconomic status, teachers of upper and upper middle class students are the most likely to say their students use cell phones in class to find information.  About half (52%) of these teachers report their students using cell phones this way, compared with just 35% of teachers of the lowest income students.

The grade level and subject matter taught also impact how phones are used in class.  Among 6 th -8 th  grade teachers, just 23% say students are using phones in class to look things up, compared with 43% of 9 th -10 th  grade teachers and 49% of those teaching 11 th -12 th  grade.  Likewise, while 49% of history/social studies teachers and 45% of English teachers see students use their phones this way in class, the same is true of just 24% of math teachers and 36% of science teachers.

Do cell phones and other digital tools create a distraction in the classroom?

While many AP and NWP teachers are utilizing cell phones as part of the learning experience, there is often public debate about “cell phone distraction” in the classroom and how best to manage the use of cell phones and other tech devices in class.  The AP and NWP teachers surveyed were asked “How much of an issue, if at all, is managing your students’ use of cell phones and other technology in your classroom?”  While 19% of these teachers say students are not allowed to have these devices in their classrooms, 28% say this is a major issue for them and another 43% say it is a minor issue.  The remaining 11% describe the management of students’ use of cell phones and other tech devices in class as “not an issue at all.”

The AP and NWP teachers most likely to say that managing student cell phone use is a “major issue” are those teaching in urban areas (37%) when compared with those in rural areas (18%), smaller cities or suburbs (27%) and small towns (26%).  Teachers whose students come mainly from low income homes are also slightly more likely than other teachers to describe managing student cell phone use as a “major issue” (31% say this vs. 24% of those whose students are mainly from upper income households).

Teachers face additional challenges in incorporating digital tools into the classroom

In addition to managing potential tech “distraction” among students, AP and NWP teachers acknowledge a variety of additional challenges to incorporating digital tools more fully into their classrooms.  By a wide margin, the most significant challenge these teachers report facing is time constraints; fully six in 10 of these teachers say time constraints are a “major challenge” for them personally in incorporating more digital technologies and digital learning into their classrooms.  Another 33% say this is a “minor challenge” for them.

Second only to time is the pressure to teach to assessments.  More than four in 10 AP and NWP teachers describe this as a “major challenge,” and almost as many say it is a “minor challenge.”  Lack of resources and/or access to digital technologies among students and lack of technical support in the classroom rank third and fourth on the list of challenges teachers face, very close behind teaching to assessments.  Much less likely to be cited as a “major challenge” are general resistance by colleagues and one’s own lack of comfort with new technologies.  About half of the teachers completing the survey say each of these is “not a challenge at all” for them personally.

Teachers whose students are mainly low income or living below the poverty line feel the impact of these challenges more than their colleagues who teach in more affluent areas.  Teachers of the lowest income students are most likely to say that pressure to teach to assessments, a lack of resources among students, and a lack of technical support are “major challenges” to incorporating more digital tools into their teaching.

Teachers must contend with the digital divide, though they disagree about the impact disparate access to digital tools is having on their students

AP and NWP teachers must also contend with the wider digital divide that exists across communities and households in the U.S., and survey results indicate these teachers see disparities in access to digital tools having at least some impact on their students.

Asked how many of their students have sufficient access, both  at home  and  in school , to the digital tools they need to effectively complete school assignments, more than half of these teachers (54%) say that all or almost all of their students have sufficient access to these tools in school.  However, where home access is concerned, just 18% say all or almost all of their students have access to the digital tools they need.

Not surprisingly, teachers of the lowest income students are the least likely to say their students have sufficient access both IN SCHOOL and AT HOME to the digital tools they need.  In terms of community type, teachers in urban areas are the least likely to say their students have sufficient access to digital tools IN SCHOOL, while rural teachers are the least likely to say their students have sufficient access AT HOME.

Overall, while many AP and NWP teachers express concern about growing disparities  across schools and school districts , they are divided as to whether the advent of digital tools is leading to greater disparities  among their students .  A large majority of these teachers (84%) agree to some extent with the statement that “Today’s digital technologies are leading to greater disparities between affluent and disadvantaged schools and school districts.”  However, asked whether today’s digital technologies are narrowing or widening the gap between the most and least academically successful students, 44% say technology is narrowing the gap and 56% say it is widening the gap.

AP and NWP teachers’ views of disparities between more affluent and disadvantaged school districts do not vary notably across different types of communities.  Asked whether they agree or disagree that today’s digital technologies are leading to greater disparities between affluent and disadvantaged schools and school districts, between 38% and 41% of teachers in all community types (urban, suburban, rural and small town) “strongly agree” this is the case.

However, differences on this question do emerge when looking at the socioeconomic status of the students in their classes.  While teachers of the lowest (44%) and the highest (43%) income students are equally likely to say that digital tools are leading to greater disparity across schools, fewer teachers of middle income students (33%) say the same.

Teachers working in different community types disagree slightly about the impact of digital technologies on the gap between the highest and lowest achieving students.  Among teachers in urban, suburban, and small town settings, slight majorities say that digital tools are leading to greater disparities among students.  Only in rural communities does a slight majority of AP and NWP teachers feel that these digital tools are narrowing that gap.

Similar variation is seen on this question across those teaching lower versus higher income students.   Teachers whose students are mainly low income or living below the poverty line are the most likely to see these digital tools leading to a wider gap between their highest and lowest achieving students.

The school environment itself can be an obstacle to effectively using the internet and other digital tools in the classroom

In addition to the above challenges, the survey asked teachers about three elements of the school environment that may impede their ability to use digital technologies effectively in their classrooms and assignments.  These are 1) filters blocking access to particular websites or online content, 2) rules governing the use of cell phones on school grounds, and 3) their school’s acceptable use policy (AUP) governing the use of school computers and networks.  Teachers were asked if their school had any of the three in place, and if so, to what extent they impact teachers’ use of digital technologies and content in their teaching.

Virtually all teachers surveyed report working in a school that employs internet filters (97%), formal policies about cell phone use (97%), and AUPs (97%).  The degree to which teachers feel these different policies impact their teaching varies, with internet filters cited most often as having a “major impact” on their teaching (32%).  About one in five teachers (21%) describe the impact of policies regarding student cell phone use as “major.”  AUPs seem to have the least impact on teachers in the study, with fully 49% saying that while their school has such policies, they have “no impact” on how they teach their students.

AP and NWP teachers working in urban areas and those teaching the lowest income students are feeling the impact of these restrictions more so than those living in other community types and those teaching students from mainly upper and upper middle income households.  In particular, teachers of the lowest income students are at least  twice as likely  as those teaching the most affluent students to report each of these policies having a “major” impact on their teaching.

For many teachers, technology must add demonstrable value to justify incorporation into the learning process

A common theme in focus groups was a concern about “tech use for the sake of tech use” without discernible, demonstrable added value to the learning process.  While some teachers view the incorporation of the newest digital technologies into the learning process as valuable, necessary and/or inevitable, others express concern about the trend.  Some noted that the prevailing assumption seems to be that incorporating more digital technologies into the learning process invariably adds value and is, in all cases, preferable to more traditional teaching methods.  There was fairly widespread agreement in focus groups that new technologies  should  be incorporated into classrooms and schools,  as long as they enhance the lesson plan and encourage learning .  Some teachers expressed concern that technology is sometimes “forced upon them” for the sake of “keeping up” rather than for actually improving learning.

Moreover, most AP teachers participating in focus groups said that as long as a new technology enhances learning, and does not pose excessive burdens on teachers, they  enjoy  incorporating it into their classrooms.  Those who were not incorporating much digital technology into their classrooms at the time of the focus groups noted it was generally a product of being overwhelmed by the undertaking rather than being disinterested or not seeing benefits. This sentiment is not surprising, given that survey respondents ranked time constraints and the pressure to teach to assessments as the top challenges they face in bringing new technologies to bear on the educational process.

Overall, very few teachers in focus groups expressed outright disinterest in bringing new technologies to their teaching or a belief that digital technologies have no place in the learning process.  Instead, most emphasized the practical constraints in making it happen and/or a desire to make sure it is done with the best interests of the students in mind and only when it clearly improves the learning process.

• See “Teens, Smartphones and Texting,” available at  https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/Reports/2012/Teens-and-smartphones.aspx . ↩
• See “How Teens Do Research in the Digital World,” available at  https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/Reports/2012/Student-Research.aspx . ↩

Sign up for our Internet, Science and Tech newsletter

New findings, delivered monthly

Report Materials

Table of contents, digital readiness gaps, lifelong learning and technology, reading, writing, and research in the digital age, networked learners, few students likely to use print books for research, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Educators’ perceptions of technology integration into the classroom: a descriptive case study

Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning

ISSN : 2397-7604

Article publication date: 14 June 2019

Issue publication date: 3 December 2019

The purpose of this paper is to supply an in-depth description of the educators’ values, beliefs and confidence changing from a traditional learning environment to a learning environment integrating technology.

Design/methodology/approach

The descriptive case study design was employed using descriptive statistical analysis and inductive analysis on the data collected.

Themes on a high level of confidence, the importance of professional development and training, self-motivation, and excitement about the way technology can enhance the learning, along with concerns over the lack of infrastructure and support for integrating technology, and about the ability of students to use the technology tools for higher ordered thinking surfaced.

Research limitations/implications

Additional research may include a more diverse population, including educators at the kindergarten to high school level. Another recommendation would be to repeat the study with a population not as vested in technology.

Practical implications

A pre-assessment of the existing values, beliefs and confidence of educators involved in the change process will provide invaluable information for stakeholders on techniques and strategies vital to a successful transition.

Social implications

To effectively meet the learning styles of Generation Z and those students following, educators need be able to adapt to quickly changing technology, be comfortable with students who multitask and be open to technology-rich teaching and learning environments.

Originality/value

This study filled a gap in the literature where little information on the humanistic challenges educators encounter when integrating technology into their learning environment providing insights into the values, beliefs and level of confidence of educators experiencing change.

• Educational technology
• Humanistic approach
• Integrating technology

Hartman, R.J. , Townsend, M.B. and Jackson, M. (2019), "Educators’ perceptions of technology integration into the classroom: a descriptive case study", Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning , Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 236-249. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-03-2019-0044

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2019, Rita J. Hartman, Mary B. Townsend and Marlo Jackson

Published in Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

How students prefer to learn has changed dramatically since the introduction of the internet. Students no long prefer passive dissemination of information being delivered by a teacher. Students prefer to watch a task taking place, and then attempt to duplicate it instead of reading or being instructed about the topic ( Genota, 2018 ; Seemiller and Grace, 2017 ; Shatto and Erwin, 2017 ; Swanzen, 2018 ). For example, 59 percent of Generation Z, 14–23-year olds, access YouTube for learning and information, 55 percent believe YouTube contributed to their education and only 47 percent prefer textbooks as a learning tool ( Global Research and Insights, 2018 ). The findings indicate virtual applications integrated into the curriculum can enhance the cognitive and creative skills of students through a student-centered environment ( Steele et al. , 2019 ). Although the study indicated 78 percent of the Generation Z believed teachers were important to their learning, only 39 percent preferred teacher-led instruction.

During the last seven years, the number of technology devices has grown 363 percent in our public schools. However, the use of classroom computers that duplicate the passive pedagogy of traditional classrooms has become more common, and the percentage of educational professional development opportunities for technology integration has remained unchanged ( Genota, 2018 ). Most college courses, even those that use a learning management system (LMS), tend to be teacher centered and lecture based ( Vercellotti, 2018 ). Higher education tends to be slow at adopting innovations in part because of the risk and the time commitment involved in exploring new tools and ideas ( Serdyukov, 2017 ). Simply adding more devices into the classroom is not enough to change instructional practices.

To effectively meet the learning styles of Generation Z and those students following, educators need be able to adapt to quickly changing technology, be comfortable with students who multitask and be open to technology-rich teaching and learning environments. However, most educators do not have the adequate knowledge, skills and confidence to effectively or efficiently use the available technologies to support technology integration into the learning environment ( El Fadil, 2015 ; Ferdig and Kennedy, 2014 ; Somera, 2018 ). In order to generate a systemic and empathetic change that can be sustained over time, educational leaders would need to explore the humanistic aspect of the change process as experienced by the educators. Inherent in the shifting role of educators is an in-depth understanding of the values, beliefs and confidence educators bring to the integration of technology into their classrooms.

Accessing information

The creation of the internet in 1990 by Tim Berners Lee ( Patterson, 1999 ) greatly influenced how people accessed information, interacted socially and prefer to learn. Generation Z (those born between 1995 and 2010) have grown up with easy access to the internet and are accustomed to multitasking, accessing information with a few clicks and watching something being done before trying it themselves ( Seemiller and Grace, 2017 ). Generation Z students prefer working with peers in collaborative groups over lectures. These students desire active learning with demonstrations and hands-on participation ( Adamson et al. , 2018 ; Seemiller and Grace, 2016 ). The students are also known by the monikers Net Generation, iGeneration or digital natives. By the year 2020, digital natives will make up one-third of the population in the USA ( Seemiller and Grace, 2016 ). Technology is a dominant part of their existence.

The traditional educational setting no longer meets the needs of a generation of students who strive to design their own learning experience ( Office of Educational Technology, Department of Education, 2017 ). However, the change from a teacher-centered learning environment to a student-centered learning environment with the integration of technology creates challenges and creates opportunities for educators ( Nicol et al. , 2018 ). Some educators recognize the benefits of integrating technology into their classrooms, which includes the advantages over traditional teaching and additional opportunities for improving student learning. Educators also consider benefits such as the availability of equipment, ease of use and the interest the technology may spark in each student ( Porter and Graham, 2016 ).

The process of identifying and implementing instructional technology requires different levels of support. The transition from a traditional learning environment to a learning environment integrating technology requires a certain amount of self-education on the part of the instructor, and the change process may take years ( Nicol et al. , 2018 ). Some educators find the process of scheduling equipment and loading materials into online course shells frustrating, and others find professional development activities do not fulfill their needs. The professional development available to faculty may have the wrong instructional focus, may be the wrong type or format, or may not be at the appropriate instructional level of the learners involved ( Reid, 2017 ). Achieving the level of support required for educators to feel comfortable may be challenging to both the support staff and the educators.

Change process

Learning how to enhance teaching with technology can be difficult ( Reid, 2017 ). Some educators approach instruction with very traditional methods. Teacher-centered lectures, pages of notes and assigned readings represent traditional or old-school instructional practices. Few post-secondary instructors are taught how to teach and most learn by modeling the teaching style of others. Teachers have not been taught how to be a facilitator in a technology-rich classroom ( Nicol et al. , 2018 ). Those teachers who do not acknowledge the changes in learning preferences may find it more difficult to teach the new generation.

Not all educators have the ability to embrace change. They may approach change with a fixed-mindset attempting to use a new technology tool and giving up easily at the first sign of difficulty. They do not see themselves as capable of learning to use the new technology tools and fear the risk of failure when trying new things ( Dress, 2016 ). The transition from teacher centered to student centered is a significant change and may be seen as a relinquishment of control by the teacher. Educators who are most comfortable in a traditional approach to education need more support when changing to a student-centered approach.

Humanistic influence on technology integration

The humanistic approach is described as involving the whole person and is manifested in the values, beliefs, confidence and emotions of the individual ( Fedorenko, 2018 ). Teaching is a humanistic endeavor, and educators find joy in being able to interact with their students and in being able to share their knowledge directly ( Azzaro, 2014 ). Learning organizations need educators who can bridge the gap between human and technological cultures ( Dominici, 2018 ). However, changing from a teacher-centered approach to a student-centered approach to instruction and learning may be difficult, and requiring the use of technology may seem too impersonal for educators to accept.

The educators’ values, beliefs and level of confidence are factors in the adoption of new technologies and pedagogies. A positive attitude toward using technology was found to be a significant factor in the intention to use educational technology. Positive attitudes have a major influence on the acceptance or rejection of the new technology integration. The change may come in the form of an educational change initiated by the college or university.

An educator’s beliefs about using technology become a factor in the ability to adopt the new technology into their pedagogy. If the transition was smooth and the process was positive, educators may be more open to accepting the change. If the change was not positive, the announcement may produce negative feelings and doubt related to any new initiative. The change may produce resistance, self-doubt and uncertainties ( Kilinc et al. , 2017 ; Reid, 2017 ). The doubt causes them to question the change and their belief system. Past experiences may also influence educators’ ability to be successful with the implementation of a new innovation, such as technology ( Demirbağ and Kılınç, 2018 ; Reid, 2017 ). If the focus of the change contradicts the current belief system, teachers are less likely to put the reforms into practice; therefore, they become resistant to the change. Changes that align with core beliefs are more likely to be successful ( Demirbağ and Kılınç, 2018 ). The alignment allows teachers to feel confident about the change process and more likely to be a user of technology.

Educators produce resistance by using the technology superficially or not at all. The resistance builds when the educational technology seemingly does not contribute to their traditional teaching ( Demirbağ and Kılınç, 2018 ). Educators may perceive learning to use the newly adopted technology as a burden ( Cheung et al. , 2018 ). The educational technology may be meaningful, but the resistance prevents them from exploring further opportunities for using the technology.

Resistance to technology can also be in association with an educator’s efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s own ability to succeed in a context-specific task or behavior ( Bandura, 1986 ; Alenezi, 2017 ). Confidence and knowledge with using technology and computers is known as computer self-efficacy (CSE). CSE refers to the ability and the application of skills to achieve a result ( Alshammari et al. , 2016 ). The importance of CSE increased since the implementation of computer-based learning at all educational levels ( Bhatiasevi and Naglis, 2016 ). Educators with limited exposure to technology in their everyday and personal lives or with limited or nonexistent support will be resistant to using technology ( Kilinc et al. , 2017 ). An educator who demonstrates higher levels of CSE will have less frustration and will increase their use of technology in the future ( Cheung et al. , 2018 ). Users of technology tend to believe in the value of technology if it is easy to use and makes completing tasks simpler ( Bhatiasevi and Naglis, 2016 ). Lower levels of CSE coincide with low motivation and the perception of the technology as difficult and useless ( Alshammari et al. , 2016 ). CSE is a major factor in the resistance of the change, but it is a barrier which is difficult to detect. However, when combining CSE with an educator’s background experiences, one may have the ability to determine an educator’s resistance to technology.

Educators who are comfortable with traditional teaching methods may feel more comfortable with a colleague or mentor easing them into the process of integrating technology. This mentor or colleague would be the change agent. The change agent would provide reassurance and support. It would not only require a change in an educators’ knowledge of pedagogy and technology but also in their self-efficacy ( Reid, 2014 ). These mentors can provide just-in-time support and help ease the educator into increasing the use of technology.

Purpose statement and research question

What were the values, beliefs, confidence and level of preparedness of educators making the change from a traditional learning environment to a learning environment integrating technology?

Method and design

Descriptive case studies provide insight into complex issues and describe natural phenomenon within the context of the data that are being questioned ( Zainal, 2007 ). The goal of a qualitative descriptive study is to summarize the experience of the individuals or participants ( Lambert and Lambert, 2012 ). The design is appropriate for this study as the researchers were seeking to gain a rich description of educators’ experiences transitioning from a traditional learning environment to a learning environment integrating technology (Harrison, 2017; Yin, 2013 ). A descriptive statistical analysis was conducted on the 12 Likert-type questions and an inductive analysis was conducted on the narrative data collected from five open-ended questions included in the survey.

Participants

The sample recruited from the membership of Association for Educational Communication and Technology (AECT) during the fall of 2018 were community college, university, graduate level educators and others who had experienced changing from a traditional learning environment to a learning environment integrating technology. AECT has a membership of about 2,000 individuals from 50 countries (T. Lawson, personal communication, September 10, 2018). This population was of special interest because of the value and experience that they place on technology as evidence by their membership in AECT. The members of this group are familiar with technology and embrace the use of technology leaving the move from teacher centered to student centered as the key challenge. An invitation was sent out to the membership through the AECT website, and members of the organization self-selected to take part in the survey by clicking on the Member Consent, “Yes, I agree to participate.” An informed Consent approval was electronically signed through the SurveyMonkey tool describing the purpose and intent of the research study and describing how the participant’s identity and responses would remain protected.

In total, 42 participants started the survey. Tables I–IV provide the demographic information collected from the first four questions of the survey.

Data collection

After an invitation was sent out to the membership through the AECT website, members of the organization self-selected to take part in the survey. Participants were provided with a link to SurveyMonkey where they were asked to complete 12 Likert-type items and five open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics were collected from the Likert-type items. Participants responded to a series of statements indicating he or she strongly agree, agree, neither agree or disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree ( Croasmun and Ostrom, 2011 ; Salkind, 2009 ). Three of the items (7, 10 and 17) were negatively worded requiring the participants to think about the statement avoiding automated responses to the items ( Croasmun and Ostrom, 2011 ). The three items and corresponding responses were translated to a positive wording for analysis purposes. The results of the Likert-type items are displayed in Figures 1–3 . In the final section of the survey, participants were asked to respond to five open-ended questions. SurveyMonkey generated a document with each participants’ narrative comments. Survey results retrieved from SurveyMonkey were anonymous with no participant names or identifiers, other than the demographic information collected was accessible to the researchers.

Procedure for analysis

SurveyMonkey site generated a graphic representing the responses of participants to the 12 Likert-type items. Due to the nature of the 12 items, descriptive statistics analysis was appropriate for describing the qualitative data in terms of percentages ( Hussain, 2012 ). A content analysis approach was used to analysis the narrative responses to the five open-ended questions allowing us to systematically describe the data surfacing descriptive codes leading to major themes ( Finfgeld-Connett, 2013 ; Miles and Huberman, 1994 ; White and Marsh, 2006 ). Researchers initially coded the narrative statements independently, then engaged in a process of reviewing and analyzing the codes through four rounds until consensus was reached on the cluster of codes leading to emerging themes. The codes were unique and used to describe the educators’ experiences and perceptions changing from a traditional learning environment to a learning environment integrating technology ( Hseih and Shannon, 2005 ; Merriam, 2009 ; Vaismoradi et al. , 2013 ).

Responses to the Likert-type questions were combined into three figures. The related questions are grouped together for easier analysis. The questions related to confidence are organized into Figure 1 . The questions that addressed beliefs are organized into Figure 2 . The questions that addressed the values of participants are organized in Figure 3 . A detailed description of each figure is provided below.

Likert-type items

Responses to the Likert-type items 6, 9, 10 and 15 focused on the confidence of level participants integrating technology. The results can be seen in Figure 1 . Combining the responses of strongly agree and agree, 97 percent of the participants indicated they had a high level of confidence in integrating technology into their learning environment. In total, 95 percent of the participants had confidence in their abilities to enhance the learning environment with the integration of technology. In total, 81 percent indicated they were prepared for moving from a teacher-centered learning environment to a student-centered learning environment. There was an 86 percent response to the participants’ confidence in technology to enrich and deepen the learning experience for students.

Likert-type items 7, 12, 13, 14 and 17 addressed participants beliefs in technology integration into the classroom with the results displayed in Figure 2 . While the participant responses indicated confidence in technology integration, the beliefs of participations in how the technology contributed to student learning were more varied. In total, 86 percent believed technology contributed to the success of students. The responses to the extent to which technology engages students in higher order thinking indicated 69 percent either strongly agreed or agreed, while 29 percent indicated they neither agree or disagree. In total, 71 percent believed their value as a teacher was enhanced with the integration of technology, 72 percent believe the culture of their organization supports technology integration and 81 percent believed they had adequate training in technology integration.

Participants responses to the value of technology integration were high, at least 95 percent in each item as shown in Figure 3 . There was a 98 percent strongly agreed or agreed to the additional functions technology provides to monitor, adjust and extend student learning. In total, 95 percent of the participants value the opportunities technology integration provided them in creating and generating relevant lessons for students. In addition, 95 percent also valued ongoing training and professional development in integrating technology.

Open-ended questions

A systematic process was used for coding the responses to the open-ended questions. The process began with open coding in which similarities and differences in the responses were identified. Labels were created and examined for the emerging concepts. Axial coding was used to generate relationships between the categories, and these were tested against the theoretical framework. This process was repeated for each of the open-ended questions.

Participants reflected on some of the ways their personal values and beliefs were challenged in Question 18. Of the sample, 36 people responded to the question. Through the analysis of the question, several themes and subthemes were uncovered. These themes were: no impact, concerns about confidence and a change to student-centered instruction.

In total, 16 participants indicated a positive feeling toward technology or that there was no impact on their values or beliefs. One participant stated, “I’ve always believed in the value of technology.” Another said, “My personal beliefs were not challenged. I was one of the teachers leading the technology parade.” Under the theme of confidence, nine of the respondents indicated they had challenges to their beliefs due to concerns of their ability to use technology. One participant stated, “It took me several weeks to feel comfortable combining teaching and using the technology.” Another shared, “I was not sure I could truly deliver as engaging a lesson as I could face-to-face.” A similar comment was related to being able to manage students when technology was added, “My confidence in students’ ability to self-regulate has been challenged more than ever recently […] especially in terms of their unbelievable ability to distract themselves […].” In addition, nine of the respondents indicated the change to a student-centered approach brought about by the technology changes created challenges to their values and beliefs. One respondent shared, “The main challenge was in accepting a more learner-centered approach after decades of using the traditional approach to teaching.” This finding is significant, because it would be anticipated the participants would be comfortable with technology and yet, the move from teacher centered to student centered still held some challenges.

The ways participants were prepared for the change to a learning environment integrating technology was explored through Question 19. There were 36 responses to this question. Through the analysis of the responses, two main themes were uncovered. The themes were: prior experience with technology or formal training with the technology and being self-motivated to learn about the technology. Some of the respondents stated more than one thing that helped them prepare to use technology.

In total, 21 shared they had prior experience with the technology or formal training with technology that helped prepared them. “I was enrolled in technology classes that helped me in college and this opened many avenues for my learning.” Another subject stated, “I was a TA for two semesters for the course I taught. I attended the class and corrected papers, which helped me become familiar the Canvas, the LMS we use.” Other examples of formal training were, “Lots of grad school, at my own expense.” and, “My field is instructional design – it’s what I’m trained to do.”

In total, 18 of the respondents shared they were self-motivated to learn. Their responses included comments such as, “Trying out the technology before bringing it into the classroom.” Another participant stated, “Because of a personal interest in technology, I had been learning on my own.” Watching how-to videos on YouTube was another example of how participants were teaching themselves. There were some comments that were not common enough to merit a theme, but that still seemed worth mentioning. These referenced the importance of collaboration among peers. The comment, “Familiarity with the technology tools was important, but more important was the discourse with colleagues and former students about instructional strategies that allow students to grasp complexity,” reflected the value put on collaboration.

With Question 20, participants were asked to reflect on some of the challenges they encountered when moving to a learning environment integrating technology. In total, 34 provided responses. One major theme and two minor themes emerged. IN total, 19 of the participants indicated the greatest challenge was resources. Resources included those of time, financial and infrastructures. Time was needed for training, for development and redesigning of materials and lessons. One participant commented, “I need extra time on improving my digital capabilities, somehow add extra workload for me.” Specific to students, “when I ask them (the students) to use the technology. It consumes time, which is demotivating.” There was also concern about the “best use of time and resources when the technology may not ultimately be useful. ‘Knowing what will endure (and hence worth the effort) is difficult.’”

Financial support and a strong infrastructure to support the integration of technology was a concern. There were issues expressed about “access for all,” “reliability and expensive of technology,” “access to computer lab shared with other instructors” and “Tech support for things I can’t fix myself.”

In total, 11 participants expressed concerns about their lack of knowledge relative to technology resulting in a steep learning curve for educators and students. One participant was surprised at the “low technology skill level of students,” and another on the challenge of “becoming both subject matter expert and IT consultant to the students.” One participant was concerned about, “Learning new technologies and making sure that the activities and resources effectively help students learning,” and another mentioned a “Lack of knowledge about software/apps and ability to use them to enhance learning.”

Resistance surfaced in eight of the participants’ responses and reflected resistance on the part of students, teachers and administrators. Comments included, “student unwillingness to learn to use the technology,” the need for “opening people’s minds to a new learning style,” and “resistance from supervisors who are not forward thinking.”

Participants shared their level of confidence in the change process and any surprises or unexpected events they encountered during the transition in Question 21. There were 34 responses to this question. Through the analysis of the question, several themes and subthemes were uncovered. These themes were: confidence, attitudes and infrastructure. In total, 26 participants responded they were confident about the change process. One of the participants who identified confidence stated, “I am usually very confident because I am an avid technology user.” Another participant stated, “My confidence rests on the awareness that there is always more to learn about merging technology and instruction, and teaching and learning is a shared endeavor.” Few participants identified lack of confidence about the change process. The participant said, “I was not confident at first, but when I found students learning and enjoying the process my confident [ sic .] increase.”

The next theme which emerged was attitude. In total, 23 participants identified attitudes as surprising or unexpected about the change process. This theme was divided into two subthemes: teacher attitude and student attitude. One participant who mentioned student attitude said of his or her students were “very confident, student [ sic .] more creative, get more learning resources.” Participants also mentioned teacher attitude. One participant was “surprised by the jealousy of others who lacked knowledge and wanted to learn. Other teachers complained they couldn’t ever use the laptop cart, since I alwasy [ sic .] had it in my room and used it daily.”

Our last question was an open-ended question asking participants if there was anything else they would like to share that was not addressed by the previous questions. In total, 30 participants provided additional ideas. Comments related to instruction were made by 12 participants. The statement, “Although instructors should be cautious about the potential the extraordinary new technologies afford, there is much reason to excite our capacities to teach in ways that were not possible without these technologies,” reflects the participants views on the ways technology can and will influence their instruction.

In total, 11 participants expressed support for embracing technology and the potential technology holds for the learning environment with comments such as, “technology will be embraced by learners and it will enhance their learning and performance,” and “The potential of a learning environment with integrated technology is enormous.” Instruction and the importance of the designing the learning environment was expressed by eight participants. Respondents believed technology can enhance the learning, not drive the learning. “We must emphasize the design aspect in the learning environment as we do technology.”

Reflecting on their experiences transitioning from a traditional learning environment to one integrating technology, 42 participants shared their insights on the humanistic aspects of the change process leading to the generation of potential strategies and approaches for future change efforts.

The descriptive statistics indicated a strong level of confidence on the part of the participants in their abilities to integrate technology and a strong sense of the value technology brought to their educational setting. However, the beliefs on how technology contributed to student learning were more diverse. The results suggest there are still some questions about the extent to which technology engages students in higher order thinking and the degree to which technology enhances the role of the educator.

Three major themes emerged from the content analysis of the narrative responses: a sense of confidence and self-motivation in integrating technology in the educational environment, the importance of professional development/training opportunities, and a sense of excitement about the way technology can enhance the learning now and in the future. Approaching the humanistic aspects of change can lead to greater acceptance of the change and a deeper commitment to the change process. Efforts of resistance can be mitigated when the educators have a sense of self-assurance in the process, feel there is an alignment with their core values and have a sense of self-efficacy toward the ultimate goal. A parameter of the study was that the participants were members of the AECT and by membership, indicated an existing interest and awareness of the potential integrating technology into the educational environment.

In order to generate a systemic and empathetic change which can be sustained over time, educational leaders would need to explore the humanistic aspect of the change process as experienced by the educators, including the support and resources needed for the effective integration of technology into the educational environment. As anticipated, the participants in this study were more confident and comfortable about the change to technology. The challenge was the shift in emphasis from teacher- to student-centered pedagogies. Inherent in the changing role is an in-depth understanding of the confidence, beliefs and values educators bring to the integration of technology into their classrooms. A pre-assessment of the existing resources, needed resources and potential resources to support the change process, as well as, an assessment of the existing values, beliefs and confidence of educators involved in the change process will provide invaluable information for stakeholders on techniques and strategies vital to a successful transition.

Recommendations/limitations

The descriptive statistics and content analysis of the educators’ responses provided an awareness of the complex aspect of the change process when embracing technology as a tool to enhance the learning environment. The findings may provide schools, community colleges and universities, as well as graduate level educators, educational leaders and educational organizations moving to technology-driven learning platforms with valuable information on the humanistic aspect of designing strategies, techniques and support structures to assist educators in effectively and successfully embracing the innovation. Additional research may include a more diverse population, including educators at the kindergarten to high school level. Another recommendation would be to repeat the study with a population not as vested in technology as the members of the AECT.

Contributions

With the expanding capabilities of technology and ease of access to the internet, students at all levels are moving toward technologically driven approaches providing flexibility, active engagement and self-control over the learning experience ( Huh and Reigeluth, 2018 ; Utami, 2018 ). The informational age is moving education from teacher centered to learner-centered supported with the integration of technology. Research exists on the success of specific technology platforms and on the implementation of teacher training to support the integration of technology into the learning environment. However, there is little to no research on the values, beliefs and confidence of educators changing from a traditional learning environment to a learning environment integrating technology. Educators are entering into the new innovations with limited skills and knowledge to successfully implement the educational strategies needed for technology integration ( Somera, 2018 ). The findings from this study add to the literature on the complex issues educators encounter when integrating technology into their classrooms and providing additional insights into a humanistic approach to change.

Confidence level of participants integrating technology

Beliefs of participants in how technology contributed to student learning

Participants responses to the value of technology integration

Years teaching

Educational level currently teaching

Subject or field currently teaching

Age range of participants

Adamson , M.A. , Chen , H. , Kackley , R. and Michael , A. ( 2018 ), “ For the love of the game: game- versus lecture-based learning with Generation z patients ”, Journal of Psychological Nursing and Mental Health Services , Vol. 56 No. 2 , pp. 29 - 36 , available at: http://dx.doi.org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.3928/02793695-20171027-03

Alenezi , A. ( 2017 ), “ Obstacles for teachers to integrate technology with instruction ”, Education and Information Technologies , Vol. 22 No. 4 , pp. 1797 - 1816 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1145944&site=eds-live&scope=site

Alshammari , S.H. , Ali , M.B. and Rosli , M.S. ( 2016 ), “ The influences of technical support, self efficacy and instructional design on the usage and acceptance of LMS: a comprehensive review ”, Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET , Vol. 15 No. 2 , pp. 116 - 125 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1096463&site=eds-live&scope=site

Azzaro , G. ( 2014 ), “ Human drive and humanistic technologies in ELT training ”, Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication , No. 27 , pp. 287 - 312 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=ufh&AN=94592418&site=eds-live&scope=site

Bandura , A. ( 1986 ), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognition Theory , Prentice-Hall , Upper Saddle River, NJ .

Bhatiasevi , V. and Naglis , M. ( 2016 ), “ Investigating the structural relationship for the determinants of cloud computing adoption in education ”, Education and Information Technologies , Vol. 21 No. 5 , pp. 1197 - 1223 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1109546&site=eds-live&scope=site

Cheung , G. , Wan , K. and Chan , K. ( 2018 ), “ Efficient use of clickers: a mixed-method inquiry with university teachers ”, Education Sciences , Vol. 8 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1174987&site=eds-live&scope=site

Croasmun , J.T. and Ostrom , L. ( 2011 ), “ Using Likert-type scales in the social sciences ”, Journal of Adult Education , Vol. 40 No. 1 , pp. 19 - 22 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ961998&site=eds-live&scope=site

Demirbağ , M. and Kılınç , A. ( 2018 ), “ Preservice teachers’ risk perceptions and willingness to use educational technologies: a belief system approach ”, Journal of Education and Future , No. 14 , pp. 15 - 30 , available at: https://search-proquest-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/2122479666?accountid=35812

Dominici , P. ( 2018 ), “ For an inclusive innovation. Healing the fracture between the human and the technological in the hypercomplex society ”, European Journal of Futures Research , Vol. 6 No. 1 , pp. 1 - 10 .

Dress , A. ( 2016 ), “ Adopting a growth mindset ”, Exchange , Vol. 228 , pp. 12 - 15 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eue&AN=115865494&site=eds-live&scope=site

El Fadil , B. ( 2015 ), “ High school technology design process – goals and challenges ”, International Journal of Arts & Sciences , Vol. 8 No. 6 , pp. 109 - 116 , available at: https://search-proquest-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/1764688920?accountid=35812

Fedorenko , S. ( 2018 ), “ Humanistic foundations of foreign language education: theory and practice ”, Advanced Education , Vol. 5 No. 10 , pp. 27 - 31 .

Ferdig , R. and Kennedy , K. ( 2014 ), Handbook of Research on K-12 Online and Blended Learning , Library of Congress, ETC Press , Pittsburgh, PA .

Finfgeld-Connett , D. ( 2013 ), “ Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews ”, Qualitative Research , Vol. 14 No. 3 , pp. 341 - 352 , doi: 10.1177/1468794113481790 .

Genota , L. ( 2018 ), “ Why Generation Z learners prefer YouTube lessons over printed books; video learning outranks printed books in survey ”, Education Week , No. 1, available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=edsgov&AN=edsgcl.555427761&site=eds-live&scope=site

Global Research and Insights ( 2018 ), “ Beyond millennials: the next generation of learners ”, available at: www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/news/news-annoucements/2018/The-Next-Generation-of-Learners_final.pdf (accessed October 21, 2018 ).

Harrison , H. , Birks , M. , Franklin , R. and Mills , J. ( 2007 ), “ Case study research: foundations and methodological orientations ”, Forum: Qualitative Social Research , No. 1 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=edsdoj&AN=edsdoj.2959900b435b4c988812267188f7b1f8&site=eds-live&scope=site

Hseih , H.F. and Shannon , S.E. ( 2005 ), “ Three approaches to qualitative content analysis ”, Qualitative Health Research , Vol. 15 No. 9 , pp. 1277 - 1288 , doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687 .

Huh , Y. and Reigeluth , C.M. ( 2018 ), “ Online K-12 teachers’ perceptions and practices of supporting self-regulated learning ”, Journal of Educational Computing Research , Vol. 55 No. 8 , pp. 1129 - 1153 , doi: 10.1177/0735633117699231 .

Hussain , M. ( 2012 ), “ Descriptive statistics – presenting your results I ”, The Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association , Vol. 62 No. 7 , p. 741 .

Kilinc , A. , Demiral , U. and Kartal , T. ( 2017 ), “ Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: the effects of an argumentation-based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher ”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching , Vol. 54 No. 6 , pp. 764 - 789 , available at: https://doi-org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.1002/tea.21385

Lambert , V.A. and Lambert , C.E. ( 2012 ), “ Editorial: qualitative descriptive research: an acceptable design ”, Pacific Rim International Journal of Nursing Research , Vol. 16 No. 4 , pp. 255 - 256 .

Merriam , S.B. ( 2009 ), Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Miles , M.B. and Huberman , A.M. ( 1994 ), Qualitative Data Analysis , 2nd ed. , Sage Publications , Thousand Oaks, CA .

Nicol , A.A. , Owens , S.M. , Le Coze , S.S.L. , MacIntyre , A. and Eastwood , C. ( 2018 ), “ Comparison of high-technology active learning and low-technology active learning classrooms ”, Active Learning in Higher Education , Vol. 19 No. 3 , pp. 253 - 265 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417731176

Office of Educational Technology, Department of Education ( 2017 ), “ Higher education supplement to the National Education Technology Plan ”, available at: https://tech.ed.gov/higherednetp/ (accessed August 12, 2018 ).

Patterson , R. ( 1999 ), “ The web’s future? Ask the man who invented it ”, Canadian Medical Association Journal , Vol. 160 No. 1 , p. 95 , available at: https://search-proquest-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/204826444?accountid=35812

Porter , W.W. and Graham , C.R. ( 2016 ), “ Institutional drivers and barriers to faculty adoption of blended learning in higher education ”, British Journal of Educational Technology , Vol. 47 No. 4 , pp. 748 - 762 , available at: https://doi.org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.1111/bjet.12269

Reid , P. ( 2014 ), “ Categories for barriers to adoption of instructional technologies ”, Education and Information Technologies , Vol. 19 No. 2 , pp. 383 - 407 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1053119&site=eds-live&scope=site

Reid , P. ( 2017 ), “ Supporting instructors in overcoming self-efficacy and background barriers to adoption ”, Education and Information Technologies , Vol. 22 No. 1 , pp. 369 - 382 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=eric&AN=EJ1125291&site=eds-live&scope=site

Salkind , N.J. ( 2009 ), Exploring Research , 7th ed. , Pearson Prentice Hall , Upper Saddle River, NJ .

Seemiller , C. and Grace , M. ( 2016 ), Generation Z Goes to College , Josey Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Seemiller , C. and Grace , M. ( 2017 ), “ Generation Z: educating and engaging the next generation of students ”, About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience , Vol. 22 No. 3 , pp. 21 - 26 , doi: 10.1002/abc.21293 .

Serdyukov , P. ( 2017 ), “ Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? ”, Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning , Vol. 10 No. 1 , pp. 4 - 33 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007

Shatto , B. and Erwin , K. ( 2017 ), “ Teaching millennials and Generation Z: bridging the generational divide ”, Creative Nursing , Vol. 23 No. 1 , pp. 24 - 28 , available at: http://dx.doi.org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.1891/1078-4535.23.1.24

Somera , S.L. ( 2018 ), “ Educator experiences transitioning to blended learning environment in K-6 public schools ”, Order No. 10746266, No. 2019657254, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, Ann Arbor, MI, available at: https://search-proquest-com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/2019657254?accountid=134061

Steele , P. , Johnston , E. , Lawlor , A. , Smith , C. and Lamppa , S. ( 2019 ), “ Arts-Based instructional and curricular strategies for working with virtual educational applications ”, Journal for Educational Technology Systems , Vol. 47 No. 3 , pp. 411 - 432 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239518803286

Swanzen , R. ( 2018 ), “ Facing the generation chasm: the parenting and teaching of generations Y and Z ”, International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Studies , Vol. 9 No. 2 , p. 125 , available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=edb&AN=129900585&site=eds-live&scope=site

Utami , I.S. ( 2018 ), “ The effect of blended learning model on senior high school students’ achievement ”, SHS Web of Conferences , Vol. 42 , pp. 1 - 6 , doi: 10.1051/shsconf/20184200027 .

Vaismoradi , M. , Turunen , H. and Bondas , T. ( 2013 ), “ Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study ”, Nursing and Health Sciences , Vol. 15 No. 3 , pp. 398 - 405 , available at: http://dx.doi.org.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/10.1111/nhs.12048

Vercellotti , M.L. ( 2018 ), “ Do interactive learning spaces increase student achievement? A comparison of classroom context ”, Active Learning in Higher Education , Vol. 19 No. 3 , pp. 197 - 210 , available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417735606

White , M.D. and Marsh , E.E. ( 2006 ), “ Content analysis: a flexible methodology ”, Library Trends , Vol. 55 No. 1 , pp. 22 - 45 , doi: 10.1353/lib.2006.0053 .

Yin , R.K. ( 2013 ), Case Study Research: Design and Methods , Applied Social Research Methods , 5th ed. , Sage , Los Angeles, CA .

Zainal , Z. ( 2007 ), “ Case study as a research method ”, Jurnal Kemausiaan , Vol. 9 , pp. 1 - 6 , available at: http://psyking.net/htmlobj-3837/case_study_as_a_research_method.pdf

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of Dr Mansureh Kebritchi research chair of the Center of Educational and Instruction Technology Research of the University of Phoenix.

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Teachers’ perceptions of using virtual reality technology in classrooms: A large-scale survey

Iuliia sergeevna khukalenko.

1 Far Eastern Federal University, 10 Ajax Bay, Russky Island, Vladivostok, Russia

Regina Kaplan-Rakowski

2 University of North Texas, 3940 N. Elm Street, G159, 76207 Denton, TX USA

Vera Dmitrievna Iushina

3 Western Sydney University, Building K, Level/1 Second Ave, NSW 2747 Kingswood, Sydney Australia

High-immersion virtual reality (VR) technology is often associated with gaming. Yet, it is increasingly popular in educational contexts due to its potential to engage and motivate learners. Prior to VR technology integration in the classroom, the acceptance or resistance toward VR needs to be explored. This paper reports the results obtained from a large-scale ( N  = 20,876) survey on teachers’ attitudes toward the use of VR for education. The survey explored the relationships between the teachers’ VR integration level and their instructional approaches, as well as the frequency of VR use. Furthermore, the survey yielded answers on the relationship between the availability of information technology (IT) personnel and the frequency of VR use. Overall, teachers had moderately positive perceptions of the use of VR in education. There was no strong correlation between instructional approaches and the level of VR integration, but lower levels of VR integration were associated with more traditional teaching approaches. The results revealed a positive correlation between the level of VR integration and the frequency of VR use. However, the VR frequency use had a weak correlation with the availability of IT personnel.

Introduction

The growing implementation of high-immersion virtual reality (VR) for education and the theories that support its use increasingly indicate the need for more insight into VR-based learning. This immersive technology is becoming more popular and successful in classrooms. Thanks to immersive and interactive settings, students are engaged and motivated to learn in VR (Kaplan-Rakowski & Wojdynski, 2018 ; Makransky & Lilleholt, 2018 ). Scholars report captivating and maintaining learner engagement along with beneficial pedagogical outcomes as key rationales for using VR in classrooms. This technology encourages student-centered, active learning, simultaneously boosting memorization (Krokos et al., 2019 ), providing enjoyable learning experiences (Chen et al., 2017; Kaplan-Rakowski & Wojdynski 2018 ), and reducing anxiety (Gruber & Kaplan-Rakowski, 2020 , 2022 ; Kaplan-Rakowski et al., 2022 ). Based on the above accolades, it is not surprising that VR has been named “the learning aid of the 21st century” (Rogers, 2019 ).

On the other hand, some VR-based research also provided mixed or even negative evidence of VR for learning outcomes. High immersion and the sense of presence come at the expense of being less able to focus on the learning aspect of instruction. Evidence of VR having a negative impact on learning has been shown in a variety of subjects, including STEM (Makransky et al., 2019 ), history (Parong & Mayer, 2021 ), and language learning (Hartfill et al., 2020 ). Parong & Mayer ( 2021 ) inform that in the majority (7 out of 11) studies, students using desktop-based learning environments had higher learning gains compared to students who used high-immersion VR. As an example of such a study, Papin & Kaplan-Rakowski ( 2022 ) found that students learning vocabulary with a VR headset had significantly lower scores compared to the subjects who used less immersive, desktop version of VR. Overall, the case for VR being more effective for learning, and for whom, is not yet compelling.

Despite the growing popularity and acceptance of VR, some reservations exist regarding its full acceptance in curricula. Some obstacles include VR equipment cost, reports of cybersickness, and overheating when used for extended time (Mazloumi Gavgani et al., 2017 ). Yet, another barrier to the VR implementation in curricula is lack of teacher training. This issue is often linked with inadequate time to learn how to use the equipment, but also the necessity to adjust the traditional curriculum to fit the use of the new medium (Alfalah, 2018 ).

Traditionally, teachers’ perceptions of instructional technologies determine how effectively these technologies are incorporated into instruction (Albirini, 2006 ). This claim goes along with the Diffusion of Innovations theory which contends that people’s attitudes toward technology are essential for its diffusion (Rogers, 2010 ). Likewise, Alfalah ( 2018 ) elucidates the necessary factors impacting the likelihood of technology integration. These factors include: (1) perceptions of students and teaching staff, (2) institutional support, (3) integration barriers, (4) rationale for integration, (5) prior technology experience. All this implies that the attitudes of end users are essential to explore during the early phase of VR technology integration. This study was driven by this urgent necessity in the context of education in the Federal Republic of Russia.

To provide contextual clarity for VR for education, we overview works addressing: (1) VR and its theoretical framework; (2), VR technology in education, (3) perceptions of VR for education, and (4) the educational context in Russia. Once we present our methodology and share our findings, we follow with discussion. The future research section poses several questions that may benefit researchers in designing VR-based research. Practical implications of VR technology are presented along with challenges that still may impair the full integration of VR in the classroom.

This section will provide a synopsis of VR technology and its theoretical framework. An overview of VR research in education will follow. We will then discuss VR technology perceptions, integration, frequency of use, instructional approaches, and IT personnel availability and present the current educational context of the Federal Republic of Russia.

VR definitions and classifications

Various definitions and classifications of VR exist, depending on the stage of its evolution. For example, Steuer ( 1992 ) defined VR as “a real or simulated environment in which a perceiver experiences telepresence” (p. 7). In 2021, after several decades of waves in the popularity of VR technology, we follow the definition by Kaplan-Rakowski & Gruber ( 2019 ), stating that high-immersion VR is “a computer-generated 360° virtual space that can be perceived as being spatially realistic, due to the high immersion afforded by a head-mounted device” (p. 552). Generally, VR technology can be classified into low-immersion VR, which is experienced on a flat 2D monitor, and high-immersion VR where users wear a VR head-mounted headset to experience VR (see Fig.  1 ). The main distinguishing factor between the two types of VR is the level of immersion and the sense of presence. Wearing a VR headset requires users to disconnect from the real world, thus enhancing the immersion into the virtual environment (Kaplan-Rakowski & Gruber, 2021 ). Furthermore, the sensory input afforded by a VR headset enhances the immersion and the sense of presence.

Experiencing High-immersion Virtual Reality

Discussions on the use of high-immersion VR often evoke around the concepts of immersion and the sense of presence. Immersion can be defined as “the involvement of a user in a virtual environment during which his or her awareness of time and the real world often becomes disconnected, thus providing a sense of ‘being’ in the task environment instead” (Radianti et al., 2020 , p. 2). Virtual reality increases the sense of presence, which is a feeling of being “there”, in the VR environment, simultaneously recognizing that you are not “there” but in the real world (Gruber & Kaplan-Rakowski, 2020 ). Simply said, VR has the power of “tricking” users into the feeling that they are inside VR experiences, allowing them to fully engage with the VR content. Given that high immersion and the sense of presence are factors contributing to high engagement, from the pedagogical point of view, VR should serve as a potentially attractive platform to compliment classroom instruction, which is often associated with relatively little engagement.

Educational potential of VR

The exploration of VR for learning has been gaining attention in various education and training fields, including teacher training (Eutsler & Long, 2021 ; Ferdig & Kosko, 2020 ), STEM education (Pellas et al., 2020 ), language learning (Gruber & Kaplan-Rakowski, 2020 , 2022 ; Kaplan-Rakowski & Gruber, 2021 ; Papin & Kaplan-Rakowski, 2020 ; 2022 ; Thrasher, 2022 ), and medical training (Ros et al., 2021 ). The growing interest in VR has also resulted in multiple literature reviews on the use of VR for learning (e.g., Dhimolea et al., 2022 ; Parmaxi, 2020 ; Radianti et al., 2020 ).

High-immersion VR has shown potential to be conducive to learning in several contexts. Shin ( 2017 ) summarizes the list of affordances in five aspects: presence, immersion, usability, empathy, and embodiment. Drawing on existing literature (Alfalah, 2018 ; Radianti et al., 2020 ), we enlist five major characteristics of VR for learning:

• VR offers experiential learning using visually-rich simulations;
• VR caters for pedagogically-sound, student-centered learning where students engage in settings and scenarios independently or in socially-rich contexts;
• VR allows to experience scenarios that may be too dangerous, costly, difficult, or impossible to experience in real life (e.g., manipulating a solar system);
• Users experience the sense of presence and immersion;
• Abstract concepts are easier to visualize in VR.

According to the Market Analysis Report ( 2021 ), the current 2021 market size value of VR is 21.83 billion dollars, but the forecasted VR industry growth indicates for the VR market to triple by 2028, to the estimated 69.60 billion dollars. Given that VR devices are becoming increasingly advanced and affordable, we may expect the growth of VR-based learning (Kaplan-Rakowski & Meseberg, 2019 ), but we argue that VR implementation in classrooms should not be accidental. Instead, it should be grounded in learning needs and on integrated curriculum.

The accelerated shift to online learning triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic (An et al., 2021 ; Ferdig et al., 2020 ; 2021 ; Hartshorne et al., 2020 ), which eventually resulted in Zoom-fatigue, prompted educators to use more engaging educational settings to break the monotony of synchronous Zoom instruction. The implementation of VR instruction seems like a viable way to continue with learning in a more engaging way. This notion may prompt scholars to use VR as an alternative or an addition to traditional or online instruction.

VR technology perceptions, integration, frequency of use, instructional approaches, and IT personnel availability

Ertmer et al., ( 1999 ) classified two types of barriers to technology integration: external and internal. External barriers encompass lack of teachers’ proper resources (e.g., software and hardware), lack of IT support, and limited technology training. Internal barriers derive from teachers’ attitudes and their unwillingness to learn, adapt, and integrate technology. Bullock ( 2004 ) identified the availability of IT support among the enabling factors that affect teachers’ willingness to use technology on a regular basis. Many teachers see the need of regular equipment maintenance by technical staff as an important condition for the successful use of computers in class (Wozney et al., 2006 ).

The integration of technology in education highly depends on teachers’ attitude and support (Ismail et al., 2010 ). Likewise, teachers’ perceptions play a role in the way technology can be adopted and diffused (Sugar et al., 2004 ). Teachers’ instructional approaches can be defined as the use of educational methods to facilitate the acquisitions of knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Hauer & Quill, 2011 , p. 506), which are considerably influenced by their own learning experiences, disciplines, and previous teaching practices (Singh & Hardaker, 2014 ). Prior research suggests that teachers’ preferred teaching approaches and strategies impact technology integration in the classroom (Ertmer & Glazewski, 2015 ). More specifically, Wozney et al., ( 2006 ) found that teachers using student-centered teaching approaches were likely to report a more frequent use of technology in their teaching and place themselves at higher stages of technology integration.

Technology integration creates new prerequisites for the teaching profession that the individual teacher needs to relate to and cope with (Roumbanis Viberg et al., 2019 ). A high percentage of teachers do not know how to integrate educational technology into their classes, which can become an obstacle in the meaningful modification of the curriculum (Hu & Garimella, 2014 ). On the contrary, numerous studies demonstrate that as teachers gain experience with technology, they start to integrate it into educational practices more frequently and with more flexibility (Ertmer et al., 1999 ; Wozney et al., 2006 ).

Even though various technology perception studies exist, their findings may not be applicable in the context of VR. Although Ertmer et al., ( 2012 ) indicates that the increased access to technology resources that can be observed since early 2000s could reduce, and sometimes even eliminate the external barriers, these barriers are likely to linger with newer technologies, such as VR. This is because newer technologies may lead to new needs for teachers’ preparation, their training, and their comfort with using the constantly-evolving VR equipment. These barriers can cause differences between teachers’ perceptions and their regular classroom technology practice. Burch and Mohammed, ( 2019 ) show that as newer technology becomes available, there will always be new and modified ways of learning and teaching, which in itself creates a new kind of digital gap in the educational system because of the complexity of continuously having to stay up-to-date with technology.

As of 2021, to our knowledge, only one survey (Alfalah, 2018 ) explored teachers’ perceptions toward adopting VR in education. Alfalah ( 2018 ) conducted a case study on instructors’ perceptions toward adopting VR for teaching information technology (IT) in a Middle Eastern university. Information technology instructors completed a questionnaire evaluating their perceptions toward VR, along with the importance and the applicability of VR as a learning tool. More precisely, the study explored teachers’ awareness of VR technology and their willingness to integrate VR in IT. The study investigated which aspects of VR are conducive to its integration, and which ones impede the integration progress. The teachers in the study were willing to integrate VR but it is worthwhile noting that they were IT teachers, with a specific interest in technology. Consequently, such a sample is typically inclined to integrate innovative technology (e.g., Georgina & Olson, 2008). In other words, the sample is skewed because, by default, IT professionals have a better awareness of emerging technology, such as VR, so their views do not represent a typical population of teachers. Besides the atypical sample, Alfalah’s study was limited by its sample size ( N  = 30).

We build on Alfalah’s study in three ways. First, by drawing data from much a larger sample of 20,876 teachers. Second, we re-direct the focus to Russia, which considerably differs from Jordan in its size and culture. Third, we expand the survey elicitation to all educational fields, including STEM, foreign languages, and physical education.

Educational context in Russia

The Russian Federation has educational institutions in both public and private sectors. The Russian geographic setting has several characteristics that make it ideal for VR integration in education, but there are also several characteristics that may limit the generalizability to other settings. Russia is highly urbanized, yet geographically dispersed. The large distances between many cities make remote learning technologies particularly attractive. Technology levels are high in many urban areas, yet pockets of underdeveloped localities also exist. Russia has a “very high” human development index (United Nations Development Program, 2020 ), but government funding can be erratic due to dependence on volatile energy export revenue and changing geopolitical conditions. In the context of the integration of innovative technologies and budget spending on technologies such as VR, Russia stands roughly in the middle as compared with other countries in the world.

Similar to the rest of the world, the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019 triggered higher focus on teaching with technology in Russia. Its educational scene has been going through digital transformation. Mikheev et al., ( 2021 ) identified several positive and negative trends in the process of the digital transformation in Russia. Positive trends include: (1) introducing innovative teaching approaches, (2) education cost reduction, and (3) increasing access to open educational resources (OER). Among negative trends Mikheev et al. enlist (1) limited budget for incorporation of digital transformation strategies, (2) teachers’ low level of confidence in using new technologies; (3) staff resistance to changes and innovation.

Rationale and research questions

Existing research emphasizes the importance of understanding teachers’ attitudes toward and perceptions of the use of technology in the classroom. Even though VR technology is becoming increasingly popular, available, and more affordable, there is a dearth of research on teachers’ perceptions regarding VR integration in education. The following research questions drive this study:

• What are teachers’ perceptions of the use of VR technology in the classroom?
• What is the relationship between teachers’ VR integration level and their instructional approaches?
• What is the relationship between teachers’ VR integration level and the frequency of VR use?
• What is the relationship between the availability of IT personnel and the frequency of VR use?

Study context

This online survey-based study was conducted in the Russian Federation to examine Russian educators’ perceptions of and experience with VR. This study was initiated by the VR/AR Center of Far Eastern Federal University National Technology Initiative (FEFU NTI) in Vladivostok, Russia. To recruit the participants, emails from the database of teachers compiled by the Ministry of Russia were used. Potential survey participants received email invitations in early August 2020. The survey was open for completion until late September 2020 in all regions of the Russian Federation.

Participants

A total of 20,876 Russian educators participated in the study. Given that the entire population of Russian teachers is approximately 319,000 ( https://www.statista.com/statistics/1130807/number-of-teachers-by-subject-in-russia/ ), our sample represents 7% of the population, making our sample exceptionally representative. Our margin of error calculation, with the confidence set at 95%, yields a value 0.66%. In social research, an acceptable margin of error is 5% (Taherdoost, 2017 ). We therefore largely surpassed the acceptable value.

The largest number of responses came from Sakha Republic (Yakutia), followed by Orengburg Oblast, Kursk Oblast, Orlovsk Oblast, Vologodsk Oblast and Kemerovo Oblast, with over a thousand responses from each region. The majority (88%) of the participants were female.

The subjects taught by the participants included computer science, chemistry, physics, biology, technology, mathematics, Russian (as the first language), foreign languages, social science, and literature. Most participants had a long teaching service record of over 20 years. Over 80% of the participants were experienced teachers with over five years of teaching record. Young teachers were the minority. Out of the total sample, 69% of female teachers and 31% of male teachers had at least basic experience using VR/AR technology. Table  1 displays demographic information about the participants.

Table 1

Demographic Information about the Participants

Survey instrument

The survey (see Appendix A) was adapted from the pre-existing, validated survey developed by Wozney et al., ( 2006 ). The original survey focused on teachers’ perceptions and practices regarding the implementation of computer technologies. We shortened the original survey from five to three sections because the scope of our study was narrowed down to VR technology. To respect respondents’ time and to increase the likelihood of completion of the survey, we included only relevant items. We then adapted the items to better suit the context of our study. Multiple experts, which included VR specialists and experienced teachers, reviewed the items to ensure the survey content validity. Consequently, our survey consisted of the following three sections:

• Section 1: Demographic information, teaching approaches, VR equipment availability, IT support availability, and frequency of VR use.
• Section 2: Perceptions of VR and use of VR technology in the classroom.
• Section 3: VR integration level.

Section 1 consisted of nine questions, focusing on eliciting the demographic information, such as gender, type of institution, location, teaching experience, subjects taught, average class size, teaching approaches, VR equipment availability, availability of IT personnel, and frequency of VR technology use. In this section, the types of questions were multiple choice, open ended, and fill-in-the-blank.

Section 2 consisted of 16 Likert-scale questions to measure teachers’ perceptions of the use of VR technology in the classroom. A six-point scale was used for the Likert-scale questions: 1 – Strongly Disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Slightly Disagree, 4 – Slightly Agree, 5 – Agree, and 6 – Strongly Agree. Out of the 33 original items in Wozney et al., ( 2006 ), we selected and adapted 16 most relevant items.

Section 3 focused on the VR integration level using the six stages of technology integration in the teaching and learning process: (1) awareness, (2) learning, (3) understanding, (4) familiarity, (5) adaptation, and (6) creative adaptation. We used the items from Wozney et al., ( 2006 ) but substituted the term “computers” with the term “VR”.

Data analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and frequencies. Research questions 2 and 3 were answered based on Spearman correlation analysis, which we extended by running χ2 tests. We present our results in the sections below.

Research Question 1. What are teachers’ perceptions of the use of VR technology in the classroom?

Sixteen Likert-scale items measured teachers’ perceptions with regard to VR technology in the classroom. Respondents used a 6-point scale to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements. To check reliability of our adapted instrument, we calculated Spearman-Brown stepped-up reliability coefficient, otherwise known as Standardized Cronbach’s alpha ( α ). Its value was 1.00, indicating a very high level of internal consistency of our scale (DeVellis & Thorpe, 2021 ).

Means ( M ) and standard deviations ( SD ) of each 16 items are enlisted in Table  2 . Five items (2, 4, 11, 14, 16) in our operationalized instrument were negatively-oriented (see Appendix A). To facilitate interpretations, Table  2 includes only positively-oriented perception statements. Overall, educators positively agreed with all the 16 statements. Only three items (1, 2, and 4) resulted in a mean rating less than four (4). The questions with the lowest rates of agreement, of 65.44% respondents answering “slightly agree”, “agree”, or “strongly agree”, was that VR “ makes classroom management more difficult ” ( M  = 3.62, SD  = 1.08). Also, a relatively small percentage (78.14%; M  = 3.98, SD  = 1.02) agreed to item 4 expressing that VR “ requires extra resources, time and effort.” , and only 79.73% of respondents agreed that using VR in classroom improves student academic record ( M  = 3.98; SD  = 0.95).

Table 2

Russian Educators’ Perceptions of the Use of VR in the Classroom

Note: Items in italics were reverse-coded

The highest agreement items, with over 90% of respondents, corresponded to items 5, 7, 8, and 13. Item 5 was the highest with 93.61% of respondents agreeing that VR integration in classroom is successful only if adequate teacher training takes place ( M  = 4.61, SD  = 0.99). A total of 90.34% respondents agreed that VR is an effective tool for students of all abilities ( M  = 4.32, SD  = 0.90). Another high rate of 92.56% of respondents agreed that VR is an effective tool if teachers can participate in selection and implementation of VR technology ( M  = 4.38, SD  = 0.87). For item 13, a total of 90.85% agreed that using VR in classroom is effective only if extensive technical resources are available ( M  = 4.40; SD  = 0.94).

The remaining items (3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16) are items whose response rate ranged between 82.28% and 89.49%. This group of items represent responses of educators who did not have very strong feelings toward or against using VR in classroom. For example, 82.38% of educators agreed that using VR in classroom promotes the development of student interpersonal skills ( M  = 4.01; SD  = 0.94).

Research question #2: What is the relationship between teachers’ VR integration level and their instructional approaches?

To determine the relationship between teachers’ level of VR integration and their instructional approaches, the study examined two factors: the teachers’ subjective evaluation of their progress in VR integration and their preferred instructional approaches. For the teachers’ level of VR integration, the participants were asked to choose one of the following six categories that best describes their progress in VR use in the classroom:

(1) Awareness: I am aware that the technology exists but have not used it – perhaps I’m even avoiding it. I am anxious about the prospect of using VR.

(2) Learning: I am currently trying to learn the basics of VR. I am sometimes frustrated using the technology and I lack confidence when using it.

(3) Understanding: I am beginning to understand the process of using VR and can think of specific tasks in which it might be useful.

(4) Familiarity: I am gaining a sense of self-confidence in using VR for specific tasks. I am starting to feel comfortable using the technology.

(5) Adaptation: I think about VR as an instructional tool to help me and I am no longer concerned about it as technology.

(6) Creative application: I can apply what I know about VR in the classroom. I am able to use it as an instructional aid and have integrated VR into the curriculum.

From the descriptive statistics point of view, as Fig.  2 shows, most participants (71.7%) were at the first three stages of awareness (26.6%), learning (21.7%), and understanding (23.4%). About 10% of the participants indicated that they started to feel comfortable using VR in the classroom. About 17.6% of the participants were at the adaption and creative application stages.

Subjective Teacher Evaluation of Their Progress in VR Technology Integration

To measure the participants’ instructional approaches, the following five categories were used:

(1) Teacher-centered,

(2) More teacher-centered than student-centered (teacher in the center of a class, leading lectures and discussions),

(3) Balance between teacher-centered and student-centered approaches,

(4) More student-centered than teacher-centered,

(5) Mainly student-centered (cooperative learning, discovery learning).

As Fig.  3 shows, 61% of the participants reported that they keep the balance between teacher-centered and student-centered approaches. Sixteen % of the participants indicated that they were more student-centered than teacher centered. Eight % reported that they were mainly student-centered, and another 8% reported that they were mainly teachercentered. Finally, 5% of the participants indicated that they were more teacher-centered than student-centered.

Participants’ Instructional Approaches

We ran Spearman’s rank-order correlation to assess the relationship between instructional approaches and the level of VR integration. There was a statistically significant, weak positive correlation between instructional approaches and the level of VR integration, r s (20,874) = 0.111, < 0.0005.

We performed χ 2 tests of independence to examine if the proportion of respondents was different from the expected, relative to a uniform distribution across instructional approaches and levels of VR technology integration. We expected that there would be a positive association between instructional approaches and technology integration level. More specifically, we expected that student-centered teachers would be at higher stages of VR integration than teacher-centered teachers.

However, we found this to be the case only for low levels of technology integration (i.e., awareness and learning) and traditional instructional approaches (i.e., teacher-centered and more teacher-centered than student-centered). That is, lower levels of technology integration were associated with more traditional approaches. For teachers with student-centered approaches, there was no association between technology integration and a more student-centered approach.

As seen in Fig.  4 , there was also an excess mass of observations (62%) within the central portion of the distribution (see large circles). A little less than half of the participants (45%) indicated that they had balanced instructional approaches and experience with low level of VR integration (awareness, learning, and understanding).

Relationship between Participants’ VR Integration and Instructional Approaches

Last, it is interesting to find that the mainly student-centered teaching approaches with a low level of VR integration are 12% which is higher than that of teacher-centered 6%. Researchers typically link teacher-centered practices with less frequent and less integrated classroom technology use (Ertmer et al., 2015 ). However, even if teachers adopt student-centered constructivist approaches, meaningful technology integration is not guaranteed (Hermans et al., 2008 ; Murthy et al., 2017 ), as many other variables can affect teachers’ abilities to translate their perceptions into practice.

Research question #3: What is the relationship between the VR integration level and the frequency of VR use?

The relationship between the frequency of VR use and VR technology integration level was examined based on the responses of those teachers who use VR rarely, when necessary, often, or always. The survey results show that almost equal numbers of teachers use the technology when necessary (35%) or almost never use it (37%). Further, 15% of teachers rarely use the VR technology. Only 7% and 3% of teachers reported using VR often and always.

We found a statistically significant, positive correlation between the frequency of VR use and the teachers’ level of VR integration, r s (20,874) = 0.546, p  < .001. That means that the teachers who are familiar with the VR technology attempt to use it more often.

Research question #4: What is the relationship between the availability of IT personnel and the frequency of VR use?

The calculations based on Spearman’s rank-order correlation to assess the relationship between IT personnel availability and the frequency of VR use yielded a statistically significant results which revealed a weak positive correlation, r s (20,874) = 0.344, p  < .001.

As Fig.  5 displays, most of the participants reported that IT specialists were available always (25%) or upon request (48%). However, 27% reported that IT personnel are absent in their schools.

Frequency of VR Technology use in Learning and Teaching Process

The survey findings indicate that almost 45% of respondents are aware that their schools have the equipment but know nothing about its model or manufacturer. Indeed, most of the surveyed believe that a thorough and time-consuming preparation and ongoing communication with IT specialists are required to successfully use VR in classroom. Nevertheless, it is surprising that, according to our data, the frequency of VR use by teachers has weak correlation with availability of IT personnel (see Fig.  6 ).

Availability of IT Personnel in Educational Institutions

Relationship between IT personnel Availability and Frequency of VR use

Thanks to the large size of the data set, we were able to investigate some additional correlations, including the correlations between (1) educators’ perceptions and VR technology integration, (2) educators’ perceptions and the frequency of VR use, (3) instructional approaches and the frequency of VR use and, (4) IT personnel availability and the level of VR integration. We calculated Spearman’s rank order correlations for all of the pairs. The values for the corresponding correlations are (1) r s (20,874) = 0,177, p  < .001, (2) r s (20,874) = 0,104, p  < .001, (3) r s (20,874) = 0,077, p  < .001, (4) r s (20,874) = 0,241, p  < .001 respectively. The dependency for educators’ perceptions was calculated as the correlation between the mean score in the questionnaire (taking into account reverse-coded questions) for every educator and the level of technology integration/frequency of VR use for every educator.

These results were statistically significant but with weak positive correlations. A possible explanation for the weakness of the correlation is that the data set was mixed, and perhaps further analyses of specific parts of the data set can be a goal for future research. For example, analyzing only the data from educators that have at least partial access to the VR technology can lead to stronger correlations, since those teachers who do not have access to the technology can be somewhat biased towards VR due to the lack of experience and opportunities.

The large sample of this study is representative of the Russian educator population, and the results provide a better understanding of the current state of the VR integration and teacher readiness in Russian schools. In addition, the results provide useful insights into how to better prepare Russian teachers for effective VR integration into teaching and learning.

In general, Russian educators had moderately positive perceptions of VR use in teaching and learning. For example, the participants believed that VR is “effective for students of all abilities” ( M  = 4.32, SD  = 0.90), it “improves student learning of critical concepts and ideas" ( M  = 4.20, SD  = 0.89), and it “motivates students to get more involved in learning activates” ( M  = 4.31, SD  = 0.94). This finding is in line with previous studies (Huang et al., 2019 ; Kaplan-Rakowski & Wojdynski, 2018 ).

On the other hand, the participants moderately agreed that VR “requires extra time to plan learning activities” and “requires training in the use of software” ( M  = 4.18, SD  = 0.95). It is worth noting that most of the participants (71.7%) were at the first three levels in terms of VR technology integration (awareness, learning, and understanding). It appears that Russia, like many other countries, is at its early stages of VR technology integration to education.

In terms of instructional approaches, it was interesting that most participants preferred to keep balance between student-centered and teacher-centered approaches in their teaching. We assumed that learner-centered teachers would use VR more than teacher-centered teachers. However, our analysis showed no strong correlation between the teaching approaches and the level of VR integration in the learning and teaching process. One possible explanation of the results is that instructional approaches did not influence the level of VR integration because most participants were at the early stage of the VR integration. In fact, 37% of the participants never used VR in the classroom. It might be too early to examine the relationship between teaching approaches and the level of VR integration when most teachers are not very confident with the use of the VR technology in their teaching.

The results revealed a positive correlation between the frequency of VR use and the level of VR integration. In other words, teachers who are familiar with the VR technology attempt to use it more often. As mentioned earlier, most of the participants were at the early stages of VR technology integration. Less than 30% of the participants felt comfortable with the VR technology and could use it as an instructional tool in the classroom (familiarity, adaptation, and creative application). This finding suggests that just knowing what VR is, does not necessarily lead to actual use and integration in the classroom.

To effectively use VR in the classroom, teachers should become familiar with the technology and understand how to integrate it into the curriculum. Once they are confident with the VR technology, they will use it more creatively and frequently. It appears that most Russian teachers need professional development opportunities that can help them develop technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) beyond the basic technical knowledge about VR. As the TPACK framework suggests, technology integration requires much more than technical skills (An & Reigeluth, 2011 ; Koehler & Mishra, 2008 ; Mishra & Koehler, 2006 ). Recognizing the importance of the links among technology, pedagogy, and content, the VR professional development programs should provide teachers with VR integration opportunities in authentic contexts.

Generally, the technology support, or IT support, is considered to be a necessary component for successful technology integration. Studies report that lack of technology support is one of the major barriers to technology integration (Ertmer & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, 2013 ; Kilinc et al., 2018 ; Nikolopoulou & Gialamas, 2015 ). Russian teachers in this study also indicated that VR implementation could be more successful if there were IT personnel available along with adequate teacher training. Nevertheless, it is surprising that the frequency of VR use had a weak, positive correlation with availability of IT personnel. This finding indicates that some teachers may integrate VR into the classroom independently without IT support. In fact, about a quarter of the participants (27%) reported the absence of IT personnel in their schools. More IT support could increase the use of VR in Russia.

Overall, Russian educators are at the early stage of VR integration, regardless of their instructional approaches but they have fairly positive perceptions of the use of VR in education even though they have limited experience with the technology. The results of this study suggest that there are various barriers to integrating VR into the classroom in Russia. Ertmer ( 1999 ) classified technology integration barriers in two major categories: first- and second-order barriers. First-order barriers refer to obstacles that are external to teachers, while second-order barriers are intrinsic to teachers. Russian teachers appear to face both first-order barriers (e.g., lack of IT support) and second-order barriers (e.g., lack of knowledge and skills). It is necessary to address both types of barriers rather than addressing them separately because they are inextricably linked together (Ertmer, 1999 ; Hew & Brush, 2007 ).

Limitations, future research, and conclusions

The goal of the study was to obtain data from a vast set of respondents (20,876) to study Russian teachers’ perceptions of VR integration in education. The data were based on self-reported questionnaires. Self-reporting can potentially threaten reliability and validity of the measurement. Because solely correlational analyses were implemented in this study, no causal inference can be drawn from the results. Follow-up studies should include analyses drawn from narrowed samples of respondents; for instance, from teachers of specific subjects (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, language learning, arts, etc.). The usefulness of VR may differ across disciplines and the perspectives of teachers in particular subject areas may yield interesting results. In fact, given that language instruction is particularly attractive in VR, based on the current study, Kaplan-Rakowski et al. ( 2023a ) explored how a subsample of language teachers perceived using VR in the classroom. Further analyses could consider responses of teachers with various experience levels and ages, to depict how particular sub-samples view VR for education.

Another goal was to obtain large-scale, general data, without detailed analyses of the respondents’ responses. Future studies should include teachers’ interviews and observations, to triangulate their responses on the survey. Some survey-based studies coupled with focus-group interviews studying teachers’ VR perceptions are already taking place (e.g., Kaplan-Rakowski et al., 2023b ). Another useful study could focus on teachers' experiences with teaching in VR and use their responses to formulate pedagogically-sound guidelines of how the integration of VR should take place, including details on professional development and teacher training with regard to VR use in the classroom. It would be useful for IT developers to work in collaboration with teachers and curriculum developers. This is because currently many VR experiences are detached from school curricula, and they disallow for learning to be seamless. Before VR technology is fully integrated into the school curricula, it is important to examine how teachers actually use VR in the classroom and how the practice is aligned with their teaching philosophy or perceptions. Such endeavors could be done through either mixed or qualitative paradigms.

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our appreciation to the following contributors: Alexander Klenin, Dmitriy Zemtsov, Dmitriy Glushko, Daria Zakharova, Oleg Rudzeyt, and Alexei Sakhnenko. Their help was invaluable during the data collection stage.

Abbreviations

Questionnaire on Attitudes on the Use of VR for Education .

This questionnaire consists of three sections. In multiple-choice questions, choose only one option that best describes your situation. The responses to open-ended questions must be included in the respective answer fields.

Section 1

General information about respondents and available resources .

Gender: Female ______ Male ______.

What educational institution do you represent? __________________.

What region are you located in? __________________.

Work experience __________________.

Specify the number of years you have taught __________________.

Subject(s) taught __________________.

Average number of students in your class.

- Less than 10.

- 10–15.

- 16–20.

- 21–25.

- 26–30.

Choose your preferred teaching approach:

• Mainly teacher-centered (e.g., teacher in the center of the classroom, leads discussions, lectures).
• More teacher-centered than student-centered.
• Balance between teacher-centered and student-centered approaches.
• More student-centered than teacher-centered.
• Mainly student-centered (e.g., cooperative learning, discovery learning).

List the available virtual reality equipment in your school (including labs and classes where applicable). Specify equipment model __________________.

Availability of IT personnel in your educational institution (for maintenance and operation of equipment).

• Available upon request
• Always available

Specify how often you use VR technology in your lessons

• When necessary

Section 2

Professional opinion of the use of VR technology in classroom .

Using the scale, indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements with using VR in classroom:

Section 3

Integration

Read the description of the six stages of VR technology integration in the teaching and learning process. Choose a stage that best describes your progress

• Awareness: I am aware that the technology exists but have not used it – perhaps I’m even avoiding it. I am anxious about the prospect of using virtual reality.
• Learning: I am currently trying to learn the basics. I am sometimes frustrated using the technology and I lack confidence when using it.
• Understanding: I am beginning to understand the process of using technology and can think of specific tasks in which it might be useful.
• Familiarity: I am gaining a sense of self-confidence in using VR for specific tasks. I am starting to feel comfortable using the equipment.
• Adaptation: I think about virtual reality as an instructional tool to help me and I am no longer concerned about it as technology. I can use many different software.
• Creative application: I can apply what I know about technology in the classroom. I am able to use it as an instructional aid and have integrated VR into the curriculum.

Declarations

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Iuliia Sergeevna Khukalenko, Email: [email protected] .

Regina Kaplan-Rakowski, Email: [email protected] .

Yunjo An, Email: [email protected] .

Vera Dmitrievna Iushina, Email: [email protected] .

• Albirini A. Teachers’ attitudes toward information and communication technologies: The case of Syrian EFL teachers. Computers & Education. 2006; 47 (4):373–398. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alfalah SF. Perceptions toward adopting virtual reality as a teaching aid in information technology. Education and Information Technologies. 2018; 23 (6):2633–2653. doi: 10.1007/s10639-018-9734-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• An, Y., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., Yang, J., Conan, J., Kinard, W., & Daughrity, L. (2021). Examining K-12 teachers’ feelings, experiences, and perspectives regarding online teaching during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Technology Research and Development , 69, 2589–2613. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• An Y, Reigeluth CM. Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms: K-12 teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education. 2011; 28 (2):54–62. doi: 10.1080/21532974.2011.10784681. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bullock D. Moving from theory to practice: An examination of the factors that pre-service teachers encounter as they attempt to gain experience teaching with technology during field placement experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 2004; 12 (2):211–224. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burch ZA, Mohammed S. Exploring faculty perceptions about classroom technology integration and acceptance: A literature review. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES) 2019; 5 (2):722–729. [ Google Scholar ]
• DeVellis, R. F., & Thorpe, C. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications . Sage publications
• Dhimolea KT, Kaplan-Rakowski R, Lin L. A systematic review of virtual reality language learning. TechTrends. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s11528-022-00717-w. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ertmer PA. Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development. 1999; 47 (4):47–61. doi: 10.1007/BF02299597. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ertmer PA, Addison P, Lane M, Ross E, Woods D. Examining teachers’ beliefs about the role of technology in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education. 1999; 32 (1/2):54–72. doi: 10.1080/08886504.1999.10782269. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ertmer, P. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2015). Essentials of PBL implementation: Fostering collaboration, transforming roles, and scaffolding learning. In A. Walker, H. Leary, C. Hmelo-Silver, & P. A. Ertmer (Eds.), Essential readings in problem-based learning (pp. 89–106). Purdue University Press
• Ertmer, P., Anne, O. L., & Tondeur, J. (2015). Teacher beliefs and uses of technology to support 21st century teaching and learning. International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 403–419). Routledge
• Ertmer PA, Ottenbreit-Leftwich AT. Removing obstacles to the pedagogical changes required by Jonassen’s vision of authentic technology-enabled learning. Computers & Education. 2013; 64 :175–182. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., & Sendurur, E. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers & Education 59 (2012) , 423–435
• Eutsler L, Long CS. Preservice Teachers’ Acceptance of Virtual Reality to Plan Science Instruction. Educational Technology &amp; Society. 2021; 24 (2):28–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferdig, R. E., Baumgartner, E., Hartshorne, R., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Mouza, C. (Eds.). (2020). (Eds.) Teaching, technology, and teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: Stories from the field. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/p/216903/
• Ferdig, R. E., Baumgartner, E., Mouza, C., Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Hartshorne, R. (2021). Editorial: Rapid publishing in a time of COVID-19: How a pandemic might change our academic writing practices.Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 21(1)
• Ferdig RE, Kosko KW. Implementing 360 video to increase immersion, perceptual capacity, and teacher noticing. TechTrends. 2020; 64 :849–859. doi: 10.1007/s11528-020-00522-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gruber, A., & Kaplan-Rakowski, R. (2020). User experience of public speaking practice in virtual reality. In R. Z. Zheng (Ed.), Cognitive and affective perspectives on immersive technology in education (pp. 235–249). IGI Global
• Gruber, A., & Kaplan-Rakowski, R. (2022). The impact of high-immersion virtual reality on foreign language anxiety. System, SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3882215
• Hartfill, J., Gabel, J., Neves-Coelho, D., Vogel, D., Räthel, F., Tiede, S. … Steinicke, F. (2020, September). Word Saber: An effective and fun VR vocabulary learning game. In Proceedings of the Conference on Mensch und Computer (pp. 145–154)
• Hartshorne R, Baumgartner E, Kaplan-Rakowski R, Mouza C, Ferdig RE. Special issue editorial: Preservice and inservice professional development during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 2020; 28 (2):137–147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hauer J, Quill T. Educational Needs Assessment, Development of Learning Objectives, and Choosing a Teaching Approach. Journal of Palliative Medicine. 2011; 14 (4):503–508. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2010.0232. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hermans R, Tondeur J, van Braak J, Valcke M. The Impact of Primary School Teachers’ Educational Beliefs on the Classroom Use of Computers. Computers & Education. 2008; 51 :1499–1509. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.02.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hew KF, Brush T. Integrating technology into K–12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2007; 55 (3):223–252. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-9022-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu H, Garimella U. iPads for STEM Teachers: A case study on perceived usefulness, perceived proficiency, intention to adopt, and integration in K-12 instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange. 2014; 7 (1):49–66. doi: 10.18785/jetde.0701.04. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang YC, Backman SJ, Backman KF, McGuire FA, Moore D. An investigation of motivation and experience in virtual learning environments: A self-determination theory. Education and Information Technologies. 2019; 24 (1):591–611. doi: 10.1007/s10639-018-9784-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ismail SAA, Almekhlafi AG, Al-Mekhlafy MH. Teachers’ perceptions of the use of technology in teaching languages in United Arab Emirates’ schools. International Journal for Research in Education. 2010; 27 (1):37–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Gruber, A. (2019). Low-immersion versus high-immersion virtual reality: Definitions, classification, and examples with a foreign language focus. Proceedings of the Innovation in Language Learning International Conference 2019 (pp. 552–555). Pixel
• Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Gruber, A. (2021). One-on-one foreign language speaking practice in high-immersion virtual reality. In Y. J. Lan, & S. Grant (Eds.), Contextual Language Learning - Real Language Learning on the Continuum from Virtuality to Reality (pp. 187–202). Springer
• Kaplan-Rakowski, R., Johnson, K., & Wojdynski, T. (2022). The impact of virtual reality meditation on college students’ test performance. Smart Learning Environments, 8 (21)
• Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Wojdynski, T. (2018). Students’ attitudes toward high-immersion virtual reality assisted language learning. In P. Taalas, J. Jalkanen, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), Future-proof CALL: Language learning as exploration and encounters—short papers from EUROCALL 2018 (pp. 124–129). Research-publishing.net
• Kaplan-Rakowski, R., Dhimolea, T.K., & Khukalenko, I. (forthcoming, 2023a). Language teachers’ beliefs about using immersive virtual reality. SSRN , https://ssrn.com/abstract=4096269
• Kaplan-Rakowski, R., Papin, K., & Hartwick, P. (forthcoming, 2023b). Language teachers’ perceptions and use of extended reality. SSRN , https://ssrn.com/abstract=4096263
• Kaplan-Rakowski, R., & Meseberg, K. (2019). Immersive media and their future. In R.M. Branch et al. (Eds.), Educational Media and Technology Yearbook (Vol. 42, pp. 143–153). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-27986-8_13
• Kilinc E, Tarman B, Aydin H. Examining Turkish social studies teachers’ beliefs about barriers to technology integration. TechTrends. 2018; 62 :221–223. doi: 10.1007/s11528-018-0280-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Eds.), Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge for educators (pp. 3–29). New York: Routledge
• Krokos E, Plaisant C, Varshney A. Virtual memory palaces: Immersion aids recall. Virtual Reality. 2019; 23 (1):1–15. doi: 10.1007/s10055-018-0346-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Makransky G, Lilleholt L. A structural equation modeling investigation of the emotional value of immersive virtual reality in education. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2018; 66 (5):1141–1164. doi: 10.1007/s11423-018-9581-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Makransky G, Terkildsen TS, Mayer RE. Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction. 2019; 60 :225–236. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Market Analysis Report (2021). Retrieved from https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/virtual-reality-vr-market#:~:text=The%20global%20VR%20market%20size ,USD%2021.83%20billion%20in%202021.&text=The%20global%20VR%20market%20is,USD%2069.60%20billion%20by%202028
• Mazloumi Gavgani, A., Hodgson, D. M., & Nalivaiko, E. (2017). Effects of visual flow direction on signs and symptoms of cybersickness.PloS ONE, 12(8), e0182790 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Mikheev, A., Serkina, Y., & Vasyaev, A. (2021). Current trends in the digital transformation of higher education institutions in Russia.Education and Information Technologies,1–15
• Mishra P, Koehler MJ. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 2006; 108 (6):1017–1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murthy, S., Warriem, J. M., & Iyer, S. (2017). Technology Integration for Student-Centered Learning: A Model for Teacher Professional Development Programs. In S. Kong, T. Wong, M. Yang, C. Chow, & K. Tse (Eds.), Emerging Practices in Scholarship of Learning and Teaching in a Digital Era . Springer
• Nikolopoulou K, Gialamas V. Barriers to the integration of computers in early childhood settings: Teachers’ perceptions. Education and Information Technologies. 2015; 20 (2):285–301. doi: 10.1007/s10639-013-9281-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Papin, K., & Kaplan-Rakowski, R. (2022). A study on vocabulary learning using 360° pictures. Computer Assisted Language Learning , 10.1080/09588221.2022.2068613
• Papin, K., & Kaplan-Rakowski, R. (2020). An exploratory analysis of the impact of learners’ first language on vocabulary recall using immersive technologies. In K.-M. Frederiksen, S. Larsen, L. Bradley, & S. Thouësny (Eds.), CALL for widening participation: Short papers from EUROCALL 2020 . Research-publishing.net. 10.14705/rpnet.2020.48.1199
• Parmaxi, A. (2020). Virtual reality in language learning: A systematic review and implications for research and practice. Interactive Learning Environments , 1–13
• Parong, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2021). Learning about history in immersive virtual reality: Does immersion facilitate learning? Educational Technology Research and Development , 1–19
• Pellas N, Dengel A, Christopoulos A. A Scoping Review of Immersive Virtual Reality in STEM Education. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies. 2020; 13 (4):748–761. doi: 10.1109/TLT.2020.3019405. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Radianti J, Majchrzak TA, Fromm J, Wohlgenannt I. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers &amp; Education. 2020; 147 :103778. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations . Simon and Schuster
• Rogers, S. (2019). Virtual reality: The learning aid of the 21st century . Forbes
• Ros, M., Neuwirth, L. S., Ng, S., Debien, B., Molinari, N., Gatto, F., & Lonjon, N. (2021). The Effects of an Immersive Virtual Reality Application in First Person Point-of-View (IVRA-FPV) on The Learning and Generalized Performance of a Lumbar Puncture Medical Procedure.Educational Technology Research and Development,1–28
• Roumbanis Viberg A, Frykedal K, Sofkova Hashemi S. Teacher educators’ perceptions of their profession in relation to the digitalization of society. Journal of Praxis in Higher Education. 2019; 1 (1):87–110. doi: 10.47989/kpdc80. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shin DH. The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning: Technological and affective affordances in virtual reality. Telematics and Informatics. 2017; 34 (8):1826–1836. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singh G, Hardaker G. Barriers and enablers to adoption and diffusion of eLearning: A systematic review of the literature – a need for an integrative approach. Education + Training. 2014; 56 (2/3):105–121. doi: 10.1108/ET-11-2012-0123. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steuer J. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication. 1992; 42 (4):73–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00812.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sugar WC, Crawley F, Fine B. Examining teachers’ decisions to adopt new technology. Educational Technology &amp; Society. 2004; 7 (4):201–213. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taherdoost H. Determining sample size; How to calculate survey sample size. International Journal of Economics and Management Systems. 2017; 2 :237–239. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thrasher, T. (2022). The impact of virtual reality on L2 French learners’ language anxiety and oral comprehensibility: An exploratory study. CALICO Journal , 39(2). 10.1558/cj.42198
• United Nations Development Program (2020). Human Development Report, New York. Retrieved on November 12, 2020 from http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/RUS
• Wozney L, Venkatesh V, Abrami P. Implementing computer technologies: Teachers’ perceptions and practices. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education. 2006; 14 (1):173–207. [ Google Scholar ]

• Our Mission

3 Questions to Ask About Using Tech in the Classroom

There are a hundred different articles out there that will explain why it is so important for students to learn to code, or to use computational thinking, or to be makers of media, rather than just consumers of it. These articles all address the 'why' of using technology -and for the most part, the points they make are valid and important for 21st century educators and schools to be aware of, but there aren't as many articles that address the 'how' - that is, how educators might be able to use technology to best effect in the classroom.

Programming, laptops, tables and other uses of educational technology have a long history - Seymour Papert was discussing why it was important in the 1970s, but we have only recently started talking about the best methodologies for using the technology, and the kinds of knowledge and skill that teachers need to be able to access if they are going to deploy it effectively. Many teachers are familiar with the TPACK model, and Ruben Puentedura's SAMR framework has gained a lot of interest, but I think Jane Hunter's High Possibility Classroom's Model is the most complete example that I've seen.

Drawing (very briefly) from Hunter's work, I've devised three questions that I think are helpful for teachers considering how they might use technology in the classroom. I use these questions to help the teachers formulate in their own minds what the purpose of technology is in their classroom, and how they can make the 'how' fit the 'why'.

Is there a tangible benefit to using the technology?

I'm not a believer in the idea that we should use technology for its own sake. Any use of technology in the classroom should have a clear purpose - and that purpose should have a benefit beyond more traditional ways of doing something. If, for example, you intend for students to write an essay, what possible benefit is there in doing it via a word-processing application? If, like in Australia, students still need to hand write their final exams, then perhaps by preventing them from hand writing, we are actually doing student a disservice. Of course, there are lots of ways to step up the traditional essay to make it a more effective learning experience through the use of technology - for example, by using collaborative editing and revising.

Does the technology allow more students to participate at a level that is suitable for them?

Teachers generally work hard to differentiate or personalise the learning in their classroom, but it's a tricky proposition at the best of times. Recent studies have shown that there might be as much as seven years difference in levels of achievement in a single classroom - providing engaging learning materials for such a wide spread is a challenge for even the most competent teacher. However, I think that technology has real potential to assist in this way - as long as the teacher in question deploys it appropriately. For example, there are plenty of examples of software that will provide reading level appropriate materials for students, or software that will deliver adaptive questioning for students at their level. Teachers can - and should - make use of all of this.

Does the technology encourage broader community participation?

My final question that I ask teachers is really related to question one. One of the great strengths - and also risks - of our connected world is that it allows students, teachers, classrooms and even schools to communicate beyond the walls of the classroom. There are now many examples of programs that link classrooms from around the world so that students can learn from each other. How much more powerful it must be for student to actually talk to someone from Brazil, for example, rather than simply learning about Brazil from an encyclopaedia or Wikipedia. Of course, teachers need to ensure that such interactions are meaningful and appropriate - but it would be foolish to miss out on such an opportunity.

These three questions are the starting point for conversations - they are not meant to be a complete list, but rather a way of directing the use of technology in the modern classroom. What questions would you add to the list?

This piece was originally submitted to our community forums by a reader. Due to audience interest, we’ve preserved it. The opinions expressed here are the writer’s own.

How Has Technology Changed Education?

Technology has impacted almost every aspect of life today, and education is no exception. Or is it? In some ways, education seems much the same as it has been for many years. A 14th century illustration by Laurentius de Voltolina depicts a university lecture in medieval Italy. The scene is easily recognizable because of its parallels to the modern day. The teacher lectures from a podium at the front of the room while the students sit in rows and listen. Some of the students have books open in front of them and appear to be following along. A few look bored. Some are talking to their neighbors. One appears to be sleeping. Classrooms today do not look much different, though you might find modern students looking at their laptops, tablets, or smart phones instead of books (though probably open to Facebook). A cynic would say that technology has done nothing to change education.

However, in many ways, technology has profoundly changed education. For one, technology has greatly expanded access to education. In medieval times, books were rare and only an elite few had access to educational opportunities. Individuals had to travel to centers of learning to get an education. Today, massive amounts of information (books, audio, images, videos) are available at one’s fingertips through the Internet, and opportunities for formal learning are available online worldwide through the Khan Academy, MOOCs, podcasts, traditional online degree programs, and more. Access to learning opportunities today is unprecedented in scope thanks to technology.

Opportunities for communication and collaboration have also been expanded by technology. Traditionally, classrooms have been relatively isolated, and collaboration has been limited to other students in the same classroom or building. Today, technology enables forms of communication and collaboration undreamt of in the past. Students in a classroom in the rural U.S., for example, can learn about the Arctic by following the expedition of a team of scientists in the region, read scientists’ blog posting, view photos, e-mail questions to the scientists, and even talk live with the scientists via a videoconference. Students can share what they are learning with students in other classrooms in other states who are tracking the same expedition. Students can collaborate on group projects using technology-based tools such as wikis and Google docs. The walls of the classrooms are no longer a barrier as technology enables new ways of learning, communicating, and working collaboratively.

Technology has also begun to change the roles of teachers and learners. In the traditional classroom, such as what we see depicted in de Voltolina’s illustration, the teacher is the primary source of information, and the learners passively receive it. This model of the teacher as the “sage on the stage” has been in education for a long time, and it is still very much in evidence today. However, because of the access to information and educational opportunity that technology has enabled, in many classrooms today we see the teacher’s role shifting to the “guide on the side” as students take more responsibility for their own learning using technology to gather relevant information. Schools and universities across the country are beginning to redesign learning spaces to enable this new model of education, foster more interaction and small group work, and use technology as an enabler.

Technology is a powerful tool that can support and transform education in many ways, from making it easier for teachers to create instructional materials to enabling new ways for people to learn and work together. With the worldwide reach of the Internet and the ubiquity of smart devices that can connect to it, a new age of anytime anywhere education is dawning. It will be up to instructional designers and educational technologies to make the most of the opportunities provided by technology to change education so that effective and efficient education is available to everyone everywhere.

You can help shape the influence of technology in education with an Online Master of Science in Education in Learning Design and Technology from Purdue University Online. This accredited program offers studies in exciting new technologies that are shaping education and offers students the opportunity to take part in the future of innovation.

Learn more about the online MSEd in Learning Design and Technology at Purdue University today and help redefine the way in which individuals learn. Call (877) 497-5851 to speak with an admissions advisor or to request more information.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Integrating inquiry and mathematical modeling when teaching a common topic in lower secondary school: an istem approach provisionally accepted.

• 1 Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, SAR China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

The world has been increasingly shaped by Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). This has resulted in educational systems across the globe implementing STEM education. To reap maximum benefits, researchers are now advocating for the integration of STEM domains. In recent studies, the integration of science and mathematics has become increasingly popular. The domains are much more suitable for integration because of their fields of application and their mutual approach towards problem-solving. However, there is little empirical evidence to drive the development of a practical model for classroom implementation. This study aims to cover that gap through integrating mathematics and science concepts when teaching a common topic to two classes of Form 1 (13-14 years) students. A mathematics and a science teacher went through two cycles of lesson study, integrating and teaching the concept of density. Results show a strong synergy between the BSCS 5E instructional model of inquiry and mathematical modeling; hence the methodological approaches can be used to integrate common topics like density. Further, teacher collaboration, teacher immersion in the iSTEM practices, teacher's knowledge, and skills of the other subject and an in-depth understanding of a problem and its contextualization, are variables that can be capitalized on to enhance the teacher's capacity to implement innovative and integrated STEM programs effectively.

Keywords: iSTEM1, Inquiry2, mathematical modeling3, Integration model4, Science5. Mathematics6, Density7

Received: 26 Jan 2024; Accepted: 10 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Manunure and Leung. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Mr. Kevin Manunure, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon, Hong Kong, SAR China

People also looked at

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

Jessica Grose

Get tech out of the classroom before it’s too late.

By Jessica Grose

Opinion Writer

Jaime Lewis noticed that her eighth-grade son’s grades were slipping several months ago. She suspected it was because he was watching YouTube during class on his school-issued laptop, and her suspicions were validated. “I heard this from two of his teachers and confirmed with my son: Yes, he watches YouTube during class, and no, he doesn’t think he can stop. In fact, he opted out of retaking a math test he’d failed, just so he could watch YouTube,” she said.

She decided to do something about it. Lewis told me that she got together with other parents who were concerned about the unfettered use of school-sanctioned technology in San Luis Coastal Unified School District, their district in San Luis Obispo, Calif. Because they knew that it wasn’t realistic to ask for the removal of the laptops entirely, they went for what they saw as an achievable win: blocking YouTube from students’ devices. A few weeks ago, they had a meeting with the district superintendent and several other administrators, including the tech director.

To bolster their case, Lewis and her allies put together a video compilation of clips that elementary and middle school children had gotten past the district’s content filters.

Their video opens on images of nooses being fitted around the necks of the terrified women in the TV adaptation of “The Handmaid’s Tale.” It ends with the notoriously violent “Singin’ in the Rain” sequence from “A Clockwork Orange.” (Several versions of this scene are available on YouTube. The one she pointed me to included “rape scene” in the title.) Their video was part of a PowerPoint presentation filled with statements from other parents and school staff members, including one from a middle school assistant principal, who said, “I don’t know how often teachers are using YouTube in their curriculum.”

That acknowledgment gets to the heart of the problem with screens in schools. I heard from many parents who said that even when they asked district leaders how much time kids were spending on their screens, they couldn’t get straight answers; no one seemed to know, and no one seemed to be keeping track.

Eric Prater, the superintendent of the San Luis Coastal Unified School District, told me that he didn’t realize how much was getting through the schools’ content filters until Lewis and her fellow parents raised concerns. “Our tech department, as I found out from the meeting, spends quite a lot of time blocking certain websites,” he said. “It’s a quite time-consuming situation that I personally was not aware of.” He added that he’s grateful this was brought to his attention.

I don’t think educators are the bad guys here. Neither does Lewis. In general, educators want the best for students. The bad guys, as I see it, are tech companies.

One way or another, we’ve allowed Big Tech’s tentacles into absolutely every aspect of our children’s education, with very little oversight and no real proof that their devices or programs improve educational outcomes. Last year Collin Binkley at The Associated Press analyzed public records and found that “many of the largest school systems spent tens of millions of dollars in pandemic money on software and services from tech companies, including licenses for apps, games and tutoring websites.” However, he continued, schools “have little or no evidence the programs helped students.”

It’s not just waste, very likely, of taxpayer money that’s at issue. After reading many of the over 900 responses from parents and educators to my questionnaire about tech in schools and from the many conversations I had over the past few weeks with readers, I’m convinced that the downsides of tech in schools far outweigh the benefits.

Though tech’s incursion into America’s public schools — particularly our overreliance on devices — hyperaccelerated in 2020, it started well before the Covid-19 pandemic. Google, which provides the operating system for lower-cost Chromebooks and is owned by the same parent company as YouTube, is a big player in the school laptop space, though I also heard from many parents and teachers whose schools supply students with other types and brands of devices.

As my newsroom colleague Natasha Singer reported in 2017 (by which point “half the nation’s primary- and secondary-school students” were, according to Google, using its education apps), “Google makes $30 per device by selling management services for the millions of Chromebooks that ship to schools. But by habituating students to its offerings at a young age, Google obtains something much more valuable”: potential lifetime customers.

The issue goes beyond access to age-inappropriate clips or general distraction during school hours. Several parents related stories of even kindergartners reading almost exclusively on iPads because their school districts had phased out hard-copy books and writing materials after shifting to digital-only curriculums. There’s evidence that this is harmful: A 2019 analysis of the literature concluded that “readers may be more efficient and aware of their performance when reading from paper compared to screens.”

“It seems to be a constant battle between fighting for the students’ active attention (because their brains are now hard-wired for the instant gratification of TikTok and YouTube videos) and making sure they aren’t going to sites outside of the dozens they should be,” Nicole Post, who teaches at a public elementary school in Missouri, wrote to me. “It took months for students to listen to me tell a story or engage in a read-aloud. I’m distressed at the level of technology we’ve socialized them to believe is normal. I would give anything for a math or social studies textbook.”

I’ve heard about kids disregarding teachers who tried to limit tech use, fine motor skills atrophying because students rarely used pencils and children whose learning was ultimately stymied by the tech that initially helped them — for example, students learning English as a second language becoming too reliant on translation apps rather than becoming fluent.

Some teachers said they have programs that block certain sites and games, but those programs can be cumbersome. Some said they have software, like GoGuardian, that allows them to see the screens of all the students in their classes at once. But classroom time is zero sum: Teachers are either teaching or acting like prison wardens; they can’t do both at the same time.

Resources are finite. Software costs money . Replacing defunct or outdated laptops costs money . When it comes to I.T., many schools are understaffed . More of the money being spent on tech and the maintenance and training around the use of that tech could be spent on other things, like actual books. And badly monitored and used tech has the most potential for harm.

I’ve considered the counterarguments: Kids who’d be distracted by tech would find something else to distract them; K-12 students need to gain familiarity with tech to instill some vague work force readiness.

But on the first point, I think other forms of distraction — like talking to friends, doodling and daydreaming — are better than playing video games or watching YouTube because they at least involve children engaging with other children or their own minds. And there’s research that suggests laptops are uniquely distracting . One 2013 study found that even being next to a student who is multitasking on a computer can hurt a student’s test scores.

On the second point, you can have designated classes to teach children how to keyboard, code or use software that don’t require them to have laptops in their hands throughout the school day. And considering that various tech companies are developing artificial intelligence that, we’re meant to understand, will upend work as we know it , whatever tech skills we’re currently teaching will probably be obsolete by the time students enter the work force anyway. By then, it’ll be too late to claw back the brain space of our nation’s children that we’ve already ceded. And for what? So today’s grade schoolers can be really, really good at making PowerPoint presentations like the ones they might one day make as white-collar adults?

That’s the part that I can’t shake: We’ve let tech companies and their products set the terms of the argument about what education should be, and too many people, myself included, didn’t initially realize it. Companies never had to prove that devices or software, broadly speaking, helped students learn before those devices had wormed their way into America’s public schools. And now the onus is on parents to marshal arguments about the detriments of tech in schools.

Holly Coleman, a parent of two who lives in Kansas and is a substitute teacher in her district, describes what students are losing:

They can type quickly but struggle to write legibly. They can find info about any topic on the internet but can’t discuss that topic using recall, creativity or critical thinking. They can make a beautiful PowerPoint or Keynote in 20 minutes but can’t write a three-page paper or hand-make a poster board. Their textbooks are all online, which is great for the seams on their backpack, but tangible pages under your fingers literally connect you to the material you’re reading and learning. These kids do not know how to move through their day without a device in their hand and under their fingertips. They never even get the chance to disconnect from their tech and reconnect with one another through eye contact and conversation.

Jonathan Haidt’s new book, “The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness,” prescribes phone-free schools as a way to remedy some of the challenges facing America’s children. I agree that there’s no place for smartphones on a K-12 campus. But if you take away the phones and the kids still have near-constant internet connectivity on devices they have with them in every class, the problem won’t go away.

When Covid hit and screens became the only way for millions of kids to “attend” school, not having a personal device became an equity issue. But we’re getting to a point where the opposite may be true. According to the responses to my questionnaire, during the remote-school era, private schools seemed to rely far less on screens than public schools, and many educators said that they deliberately chose lower-tech school environments for their own children — much the same way that some tech workers intentionally send their kids to screen-free schools.

We need to reframe the entire conversation around tech in schools because it’s far from clear that we’re getting the results we want as a society and because parents are in a defensive crouch, afraid to appear anti-progress or unwilling to prepare the next generation for the future. “I feel like a baby boomer attacking like this,” said Lewis.

But the drawbacks of constant screen time in schools go beyond data privacy, job security and whether a specific app increases math performance by a standard deviation. As Lewis put it, using tech in the classroom makes students “so passive, and it requires so little agency and initiative.” She added, “I’m very concerned about the species’ ability to survive and the ability to think critically and the importance of critical thinking outside of getting a job.”

If we don’t hit pause now and try to roll back some of the excesses, we’ll be doing our children — and society — a profound disservice.

The good news is that sometimes when the stakes become clear, educators respond: In May, Dr. Prater said, “we’re going to remove access to YouTube from our district devices for students.” He added that teachers will still be able to get access to YouTube if they want to show instructional videos. The district is also rethinking its phone policy to cut down on personal device use in the classroom. “For me,” he said, “it’s all about how do you find the common-sense approach, going forward, and match that up with good old-fashioned hands-on learning?” He knows technology can cause “a great deal of harm if we’re not careful.”

Jessica Grose is an Opinion writer for The Times, covering family, religion, education, culture and the way we live now.