What We Know

National and state guidelines are being, or have been established for students, teachers and administrators. Moneys have been provided for, or designated, by schools to install the infrastructure connecting schools/classrooms to the Internet, purchase computers and peripherals, train educators and write new curriculums. Yet, research shows that little has changed in education as technology has been mostly used to learn from or learn about technology rather than to learn with technology (Jonassen 1996, p. 11). Federal legislation associated with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has made it even more critical that educators provide a rich learning environment to address the educational needs and interests of all children (Teclehaimanot and Lamb 2004). Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) is the component of NCLB that addresses the integration of technology into the classroom. This component has three goals:

• To improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in elementary and secondary schools;
• To assist every student in crossing the digital divide by ensuring that every student is technologically literate by the time the student finishes the eighth grade; and
• To encourage the effective integration of technology resources and systems with teacher training and curriculum development (high-quality professional development).

This legislation further demonstrates a commitment to research what works by measuring the impact of technology on instruction and learning as evidenced through state and national multi-year studies.

Technology is a tool to be used by students and teachers. Thinking about technology from the perspective of learning with, or as a partner in the educational process, changes how we think about technology. In Learning to Solve Problems with Technology: A Constructivist Perspective, the authors note a number of ways educators’ views of technology change when it is seen as a partner in the educational process (Jonassen et al. 1999). First, technology is more than hardware; it also involves any techniques or methods of using the technology to engage students. Next, learning technologies can be in any environment that engages learners in active, constructive, intentional, authentic and cooperative learning. Technologies are not conveyors or communicators of meaning; they should not prescribe and control learner interactions. Technology supports learning when it fulfills a learner need (i.e., learner initiated and learner controlled). Technologies function as intellectual toolkits that support the functions required by the course of study. Finally, learners and technology should be intellectual partners (Jonassen et al. 1999, p. 11).

What does the research state about technology integration?

Research on technology integration is ever-evolving because technology itself is changing daily. One conclusion evident in the research is that when technology is used as the “teacher” or “information provider,” it is no more effective at teaching than the teacher (Jonassen et al. 1999, p. 11). When teachers develop creative methods and strategies to incorporate technology into their instruction, education will be improved (Beaudin and Grigg 2001, p. 8). Teachers are facilitators of technology use in their classrooms, and not teachers of computer skills in the social studies classroom (Beaudin and Grigg 2001, p. 3). Meaningful learning, when using technology as a learning tool, takes place when it is active, constructive, intentional, authentic and cooperative (Jonassen et al. 6-9). This research suggests that these five characteristics of meaningful learning are interactive, interrelated, and interdependent: in other words, synergetic. Contemporary research on learning shows that when tasks are real-world or simulated in case-based environments, the concepts are learned not for the short-term, but are able to be transferred to new situations (Jonassen et al. 1999, p. 8).

Learning to solve problems and make decisions as citizens is the most important goal of the social studies program in Ohio. New technology, especially the Internet, can have an important impact on social studies education by increasing the amount of information available to both students and teachers. (Ohio Department of Education 2003, p. 313).

Tancock stresses the need for teachers to use judgment in combining technical know-how with the prescribed curriculum as well as students’ knowledge and skills (2002). She suggests that teachers, especially elementary school teachers, continue to require the students to listen, which develops concentration skills; to read, which enhances abstract-symbolic thinking; to discuss, which develops communication skills; and to reflect, which enables the application of analytic reasoning skills. Tancock noted one difference in young children who used Internet sites for information. These students persevered in decoding text and constructing meaning beyond what they seemed willing to do when reading their textbooks. In another study involving reading and the Internet, Sui and Bednarz noted that print fosters a linear view of life as repeating natural cycles, and promotes the view of constant linear change and improvement (1999). Life is more chaos theory and rarely does linear change occur. The researchers countered that the electronic medium of television, videos, computers and the Internet can involve multiple senses, bringing about changes to both individuals and societies in non-linear ways (Sui and Bednarz 1999). These changes are strongly evident in the field of social studies. Teclehaimanot and Lamb also researched reading and the Internet. They found that Internet-based comprehension tasks open new purposes for reading, more critical thought processes during reading, and new examples of authentic responses after reading (Teclehaimanot and Lamb 2004).

To prepare students for the competitive 21st Century society, Tancock believes educators need to provide students the opportunity to use technology while working together to access information, apply information in problem-solving and share their solutions (2002). Jonassen et al. concur, stating that unless students are required to engage in higher order thinking, they will develop oversimplified views of the world (1999). 

Current research indicates that students who use the computer as a “tool for design” and to support project-based learning scored significantly higher on data interpretation when compared with students in a traditional classroom (Smith and Broom 2003, p. 11). In the same report, there is initial evidence that innovative technology use in the classroom can have positive effects on student motivation, self-esteem and classroom behavior (Smith and Broom 2003, p. 12).

How does the research impact the social studies classroom?

As reported in Ohio’s Academic Content Standards: K-12 Social Studies, “Most social studies teaching materials provide material related to one or two of the standards, but do not contain in-depth content related to all seven standards. Through the use of technology, teachers can access supplemental materials and current information to address all the standards” (2003, p. 313).

Computers in the classroom are effective for accessing information and interpreting, organizing and representing personal knowledge (Jonassen 4). Productivity tools consisting of word processing, spreadsheet, database and hypermedia are available to many students. CD-ROM books or encyclopedias, drill and practice programs and edutainment software are often found on computers in the early elementary grade classrooms. Thouvenelle and Bewick find that students should have limited time using drill and practice and edutainment programs that have them identifying the same old information (e.g. colors, shape recognition, letters or numbers) (2003  p. 21). If a program has cute animations or pretty graphics, but there is only one answer, the students become passive while the computer is active (Thouvenelle and Bewick 2003, p. 24).

Doolittle and Hicks state that technology should be used in the social studies classroom to foster students’ academic independence and the ability to think and act (2003, p. 92). As such, teachers serve primarily as guides and facilitators of knowledge construction. Beginning in the upper elementary grades through high school, the use of productivity tools as tools for learning assists students by allowing them to interact within authentic situations that are relevant to their prior knowledge and goals (Doolittle and Hicks 2003, p. 85).

According to Perkins, the major themes in social studies education is the search for engagement, for understanding, for “higher-order thinking,” for promoting teaching that goes beyond the dominance of factual memorization, recall and recitation (Seixas 2001, p. 558). Building context in the various fields of social studies (e.g., history, geography and economics) requires a blending of source-based inquiry and a study of scholarly work (Rogers 1987, p. 9). Social studies inquiry cannot be carried on without context while at the same time context is what students’ previous study of this field has provided (Rogers 1987, p. 8). Doolittle and Hicks warn educators of this same risk, cautioning that “an ungrounded social studies [one lacking context] that embraces the ideal that ‘every view is appropriate’ will soon become meaningless to students” (2003, p. 94).

Students in grades pre-kindergarten through one should be introduced to computers when the students are able to use computer programs that allow them to control a simulated environment or to create/construct new information (Thouvenelle and Bewick 2003, p. 21). In social studies, this would include programs that allow students to create a town, draw representations of community events, and tell how the scene represents a service or historical event. Chipman cautions the use of word processing at this age as students need to develop the fine motor skills that come with using pencil and paper (2003). Chipman’s research finds a possibility of students having a harder time initially learning composition and revision when a word processor is used, two skills associated with social studies and language arts (2003, p. 35).

At the appropriate age, word processing allows students to create their own concept maps or schema-building diagrams. Jonassen suggests using concept maps as a planning tool (1996). One use for the concept maps is for teachers to assess what the student knows (not for grading at this point but for scaffolding lessons) and, second, for the student to develop questions to determine if the schema fits the new information found from researching the questions (Jonassen 1996, p. 66). Using word processing tools, interpersonal charts or data recognition charts help students fill in information about how various groups in society or the world compare based on set criteria (Johnson 2000, pp. 45, 108). From the charts, students may construct reports, essays, position papers, or other written forms to present their findings. Word processing programs allow older students to view emerging text as malleable; it can be cut, pasted, copied and deleted with the stroke of a key (Tancock 2002). This ease of revision may help the writer process ideas.

Database programs open a new world of exploration to students. In all areas of social studies, databases are used as a means of analyzing and summarizing information. Jonassen et al. find that databases help students integrate and interrelate content ideas thus making the ideas more meaningful (1999, p. 37). Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) are two data-based programs that can be used to create critical thinking and problem-solving situations for students (Broda and Baxter 2003, p. 159). GIS is both a data analysis and visualization tool. When using GIS, students have a number of advantages over traditional geographic representation methods such as paper maps. Students can overlay any combination of maps to assist them in visualizing spatial relationships (Broda and Baxter 2003, p. 158). Kenneth Peterson finds that when students use GIS concepts involving interspatial comparisons it enhances the students’ ability to understand and remember relationships contained in the data. Peterson applies GIS in the study of economics by allowing students to “humanize” topics such as poverty and income distribution in their own communities (2000, p. 169). Alibrandi states that GIS is a great analytical tool that works well with middle school students and her study concludes that middle school students take great pride in demonstrating their mastery of cyberspace and GIS provides them the tool they need to relate it to their community (2003, pp. 6, 10). The data and visual representations allow students to do “ground-truthing.” Students compare the maps to features they observe in walking around their community (Alibrandi 2003, p. 16). Through this hands-on experience, students come to a critical understanding of the limitations of data and begin to make decisions not simply based on “what is given,” but from habits of looking at what is behind the data (Alibrandi 2003, p. 164). 

A Global Positioning System (GPS) is a data gathering tool. Using GPS, students can gather information on latitude and longitude, elevation, changes in elevation, the location of roads, public buildings, bodies of water, and bridges, as well as distance, speed, and direction traveled. Taking field trips and recording changes in direction, elevation, speed, and distance provides a wealth of data to be used in math, science, language arts, geography, and civics lessons (Butler and Wilkerson 2000; Orvis et al. 1999). Like GIS, GPS experiences provide the opportunity for students to use real data to analyze real situations; a change of pace that alters the conventional pattern of instruction (Broda and Baxter 2003, p. 159).

The use of productivity tools allows for the cyclical process of experience, knowledge construction and knowledge assessment. In social studies, theories, concepts and perspectives must be assessed for their viability in explaining events, efficacy in representing others’ perspectives and precision in defining concepts (Doolittle and Hicks 2003, p. 91). There are hundreds of databases covering a wide array of topics available for free on the Internet. These databases open the door for students to build their own viable interpretation of the world because they have ownership of the process and the knowledge gained (Jonassen 1996, p. 12). Thus, students are less likely to forget and more likely to apply skills to new situations. It is when students identify salient questions for study, research those questions, and analyze the information that they begin to see where their ideas or beliefs hold up or need revision (Cognition and Technology Group 2003, p. 176).

While information searching is essential to meaning-making and problem-solving, it does not constitute learning (Jonassen et al. 1999, p. 25). Intentional searching requires a four-step process: plan what you are looking for and why; use strategies to search the Web; evaluate the relevancy and credibility of the information found; and triangulate sources by identifying two other sources that provide the same information (Jonassen et al. 1999, p. 26). Students need to see research as a step in the process; a means to a bigger end, not just one right answer. Jonassen et al. identify the teacher as the “coach” in this process who helps students interact with the larger community of social studies scholars (1999). The job of the teacher/coach is to constantly assess where the student is, remind him/her of the questions asked, and ask about the validity of data (Jonassen et al. 1999, p. 14). Doolittle and Hicks find that when students evaluate the authority and the accuracy of Web sites, they are becoming knowledgeable, discriminating and responsible users of all media sources (2003, p. 89). 

Levstik and Barton emphasize that students in grades Kindergarten-12 need to “do research.” (2001). In order to “do research” students need assistance with “investigation” methods, collection of information, reaching conclusions and presenting findings (Levstik and Barton 2001, p. 77). Fidel et al., in their research of student behavior on the Internet, found that students view the Internet as “one-stop shopping” (1999, p. 32). Students felt it was easier to find information on the web and could decide what was relevant. This raises concerns by the researchers. Wepner found that students using the Internet for research often copy and paste information into their reports, leading to plagiarism and failure to comprehend the material (2002). Tancock observed that when teachers structure Internet research so that assignments do not have students seeking “one right answer,” students engage in inquiry by exploring nearly unlimited resources that provide a depth and context not found in textbooks (2004).

Wepner suggests a number of considerations when developing an Internet-based assignment (2002). The purpose of the assignment is primary. If the assignment is to find one specific answer, the Internet may not be the best choice for students to use. Multimedia resources often take more time and effort than print sources when assignments require one correct answer (Fidel et al. 1999, p. 24). Secondly, consider how easy is it for students to navigate the Internet. Do students know how to use search engines or directories? Fidel et al. find that students had difficulties in describing their search strategies or determining what word to use to begin the search (1999, p. 33). A third consideration when developing an Internet-based assignment is the type of assignment and the best way for students to convey the information. Fidel et al. note that students are highly impatient, and when they could not find what they were looking for on the first page of a Web site they would abandon their search (1999, p. 31). This leads to a fourth consideration: What type of instruction is needed to help students begin their search process? Providing students training in Internet searching prior to the assignment helps students develop productive learning habits (Fidel et al. 1999, p. 34).

Thouvenelle and Bewick maintain that children will not become smart by learning how to operate a computer; knowledge-building results by using the computer and the Internet as a tool (2003). Thouvenelle and Bewick found that for young students who use the Internet, or even computer programs, the collaboration and cooperation brought about greater success in the process (2003, p. 97). Doolittle and Hicks view the use of computers and the Internet as a focal point for cooperative learning groups, group discussions and debate that provides students a broad range of experiences to challenge their concepts and understand the concepts held by others (2003, p. 90).