Journal of Literacy and Technology 99

Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016

ISSN: 1535-0975

Generation Gap Between Students’ Needs and Teachers’

Use of Technology in Classrooms

Peggy S. Lisenbee
The University of Tulsa
peggy-lisenbee@ultulsa.edu
Journal of Literacy and Technology 100
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

Abstract

In the 21st century, technology is a pervasive presence in the classroom. Unintended

consequences of a technologically rich classroom learning environment emerge due to the

dichotomy between 21st-century learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of the need to use

technology. Several factors affecting the generation gap between teachers and students in

classrooms are shared such as characteristics of 21st-century learners, teacher's perceptions of

technology, student's ability to use technology independently, teacher training and the need to

reshape pedagogy based on national education standards focused on technology use. The

EMSCI Model provides teachers with a process to teach students how to use technology

independently and suggests a pedagogical paradigm shift towards constructivist teaching to

offset the generation gap.

Key Words: Technology, pedagogy, generation gap, constructivist, 21st-century learners

Journal of Literacy and Technology 101
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

The increase in availability and access to technology in the last 20 years has highlighted

the gap between students’ needs and teachers’ use of technology in classrooms. By 2006, two-

thirds of all PK-12th grade students had a computer in their home and half of those had the

Internet (Calvert, Rideout, Woolard, Barr & Strouse, 2005; DeBell & Chapman, 2003; Gutnick,

Robb, Takeuchi & Kotler, 2011). In 2011, children between 5-9 years of age used the Internet

about 28 minutes a day increasing to 46 minutes between the ages of 8-10 years. This is double

the amount of time similarly aged children spent on the Internet in 2006 (Gutnick, et.al, p. 16).

The prevalence of technology used by the youngest in our population speaks to why teachers

need to include technology in their pedagogy.

Current PK-12 students are considered to be Digital Natives. Prensky coined the term

Digital Native to define “native speakers of technology, fluent in the digital language of

computers, video games, and the Internet” (2005-06, p. 9). Prensky described teachers as Digital

Immigrants since most teachers were born before widespread use and availability of technology

(Prensky, 2005-06). A synonym used interchangeably in education for Digital Natives is 21st

Century Learners. These two terms represent students who are currently experiencing “…a

profound gap between the knowledge and skills most students learn in school and the knowledge

and skills they will need in typical 21st-century communities and workplaces" (Gura & Percy,

2005, p.32).

Twenty-first-century learners want to use technology in authentic ways. They expect to

be technically competent in basic, application-specific tasks, such as creating a PowerPoint

presentation, but also expect to be able to use technology for critique and analysis independently.

Twenty-first-century learners use technology such as video games, social media, email, text
Journal of Literacy and Technology 102
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

messaging, the Internet, digital music players, cell phones, computers and tablets in their daily

lives. Prensky (2005-06, p. 13) claims “…students, who are empowered in so many ways

outside their schools today, have no meaningful voice at all in their own education…." regarding

technology use in their classroom. A student-centered classroom in the 21st century is one in

which students are engaged in using technological tools to assist them in constructing a deeper

understanding of concepts. While students’ welcome technology as a familiar learning tool, too

many teachers use technology as “electronic worksheets” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 45). In some

classrooms, technology is a reward for on-task behavior rather than an everyday tool to provide

meaningful and engaging teaching and learning.

…the billions schools have spent on computers have had little effect on how

teachers and students learn…The reason for this disappointing result is that the

way schools have employed computers has been perfectly predictable, perfectly

logical—and perfectly wrong…Using computers this way will never allow schools

to migrate to a student-centric classroom” (Christensen, Horn & Johnson, 2008,

p. 72-73).

Becker (2000) shared that children commonly use computers for information gathering or

word processing. However, utilizing technology in such a static manner denies the interactive

and engaging element embedded in most technological tools. Teachers know that it is this

interactive and engaging element in technology that attracts students to technological tools and

assists them in constructing a better understanding of their thinking through their experiences.

Twenty-first-century learners need a pedagogical shift in classrooms, so technology is offered for

use to construct their knowledge of academic content.

Journal of Literacy and Technology 103
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

Some unintended consequences of technology creating a generation gap between

teachers’ use and students’ need for technology are 21st-century learner characteristics, teachers’

perception of using technology and the way technology reshapes pedagogy. A few additional

factors affecting the generation gap between teachers’ use and students’ needs to use technology

in a classroom will be discussed such as the Digital Divide, the ability of students to be able to

use technology independently, professional development training and technological integration

using national education standards. All of these factors provide a broad view of how technology

has unintentionally created a generation gap between teachers and students in classrooms.

Lastly, recommendations for reimagining the classroom to decrease the generation gap between

students and teachers is shared.

Characteristics of 21st Century Learners

During the 1980s, classrooms in the United States held a ratio of one computer for every

125 students. By 1997, the availability of technology increased the number of computers

changing the ratio dramatically to one computer for every ten students. By 2004, the ratio had

changed to one computer for every five students (Clements, 1999; Coley, Cradler, & Engle,

1997, U.S. Department of Education, 2004).

As early as 2004, 99% of schools in the United States utilized an Internet connection

(The United States Department of Education, 2004). As such, “Technology is ubiquitous,

touching almost every part of our lives….Properly used; technology will help students acquire

the skills they need to survive in a complex, highly technological knowledge-based economy

(Edutopia, 2008, p.1).” Since students live in a world of engaging, interactive technology, it is

important to include technology in schools for teaching and learning (Becker, 2000; Calvert et.

al, 2005; Chiong & Shuler, 2010; ISTE, 2010; Lisenbee 2009; NAEYC, 2012). Due to the
Journal of Literacy and Technology 104
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

expansive nature of technology since 2004, a generation gap has been recognized and explained

as a digital divide between students and teachers.

The digital divide encompasses many factors beyond a generation gap between students’

need to utilize technological tools for learning in their classroom and teachers’ ability to

incorporate technology into their pedagogy effectively. The definition of the digital divide is

"gaps in access to and use of computers based on income, race, or parent education.” (Calvert,

et.al, 2005, p. 592). When viewing the generation gap between students and teachers, the

expectations from technology by each cohort are drastically different. Students consider

technology as a tool to communicate and interact with others including as a method to

demonstrate their understanding through multimodal interactions. Teachers view technology as

a tool to research and present information in a visual manner.

Many teachers are not comfortable allowing students to independently explore and

construct their knowledge using multimodal interactions with technology when teachers,

themselves, are not experts in a vast array of technological tools. This gap between students’

expectations and teachers’ use of technology in a classroom creates a disconnect between

students and teachers. While teachers need to guide instruction for student learning, learning

occurs best when students are actively involved in using technology, not watching a teacher use

technology (Prensky, 2008; Grabe & Grabe, 2007). Therefore, teachers’ perception of using

technology in a classroom depends not only on their ability to use technology but being

comfortable in offering students an opportunity to use technology in their classroom

independently. A key factor which contributes to the generation gap between students and

teachers is whether students can independently use technology.

Journal of Literacy and Technology 105
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

Teachers’ Perception of Using Technology

An issue contributing to the gap between teachers and students’ use of technology in a

classroom is the teacher’s perception of technology. Research has shown that “…teachers hold a

high agreement toward using computers” as an instructional practice, yet they did not “have

strong beliefs about allowing children” to use technology in the classroom (Ihmeideh, 2010, p.

75). I found a similar trend when conducting a survey on teachers’ perceptions of technology

use for instruction with PK-5th grade elementary teachers.

A survey placed in 17 teachers' mailboxes at a public elementary school in an urban area

of a Midwestern state along with a letter asked teachers to answer the questions and return the

survey in one week. The methodology chosen for this survey was a selective sample. The

teachers ranged in teaching experience from one year to 37 years with a mean of 13 years of

teaching experience. This school housed a variety of programs including multi-disabled,

developmentally disabled, deaf education, and served Pre-Kindergarten to 5th-grade students.

Thirteen out of 17 teachers in the elementary school returned the survey. The survey

consisted of Likert questions, using a 1-4 scale, requesting information about teacher perceptions

of using technology in their classrooms. The return rate for the surveys was 76%. Analysis of

frequencies on the agreement with survey statements provide data on teachers' perceptions of

technology use in classrooms. The results illuminate an understanding by teachers of the

generation gap between teachers’ use and students’ needs in their use of technology in

classrooms.

Table 1 and Table 2 offer a view of the quantitative results from this survey. Table

illustrates teachers’ perceptions of technology use in a classroom. Eighty-nine percent of the

responding teachers reported enjoying the use of technology. Ninety-five percent of the
Journal of Literacy and Technology 106
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

Table 1--Teachers' Perceptions of Technology

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Teachers reported Teachers reported Teachers reported
enjoying using technologyagreement that technology underusing technology in
with students in their was beneficial for their classroom.
classroom. students learning process
in a classroom.
Journal of Literacy and Technology 107
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

responding teachers said they felt technology was beneficial for students while 84% reported

they underused technology in their classrooms.

Table 2 illustrates teachers’ perceptions of student’s independent use of technology in a

classroom. Forty-two percent of the teachers felt students learned better when using

technological methods of interaction and instruction and 89% of the teachers reported

technological tools were more effective for students to demonstrate their understanding of

concepts taught in a classroom. Yet, 89% of the teachers reported technology seemed to be

distracting to students.

Overall, teachers’ perception of technology use in the classroom was positive while their

perception of students’ independent use of technology in the classroom was inconsistent. The

inconsistency is demonstrated by the dichotomy between the 89% of teachers designating

technology was distracting for teaching and learning and the 95% of teachers agreeing student

learning integrated with technology was beneficial. These results suggest that the generation gap

is real. Teachers are not as comfortable letting students use technology in the classroom, but like

using it to teach. Teachers understand how technology can motivate students to learn and

demonstrate their understanding more efficiently using technology even though teachers don’t

offer independent use of technology consistently to students in their classroom.

Given the small number of teachers that participated in this survey, these findings are not

generalizable to all teachers. It is important to note that this survey suggests teachers’

perceptions do influence how they integrate technology in a classroom. Students cannot master

independently using technology nor become productive members of the 21st century if teachers

do not routinely include technology for teaching and learning in classrooms.

Journal of Literacy and Technology 108
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

Table 2--Teachers' Perceptions of Student Use of Technology

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Teachers reported Teachers reported Teachers reported that
agreement that students agreement that students were able to use
learn better when using technology was technological tools better
technological tools distracting to students than traditional methods
instead of using when used for teaching to demonstrate their
traditional methods in and learning in their understanding of concepts
their classroom. classroom. taught in their classroom.
Journal of Literacy and Technology 109
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

Escobar and Cappella (2000) found similar results when they interviewed a small sample

of students about their perception of using technology as a tool in a classroom. They found

students expected to be able to use technology in a classroom. An eight-year-old shared that by

using computers in a classroom students “…learn more things, and they’ll be learning and

having fun at the same time (Escobar & Cappella, 2000, p.187)." A 13-year-old student stated

"….computers will be the future, so if you grow up with it, then you will know it (Escobar &

Cappella, 2000, p.187).” These students’ voices provide a perspective to understand 21st-

century learners’ expectations to use technology for teaching and learning in a classroom.

The burden is on teachers to bridge the generation gap by embracing the use of

technology (Prensky, 2005; Buzhardt & Heitzman-Powell, 2005). Technology continuously

advances in our society causing teachers’ interest to be piqued, but many instructional

innovations grounded in technology have been implemented and discontinued as fast as teachers

have been trained to integrate them into their teaching. When schools began purchasing

technological tools for classrooms, the predominant thought was to train the teachers how to use

these new tools. Unfortunately, training was not the obvious fix that schools assumed it would

be to get teachers to use technology for teaching and learning in their classrooms. This is due in

part to how technology reshapes pedagogy. Teachers cannot just be trained to know how to use

the technological tools while remaining unable to apply their understanding of how to teach or

offer technology to students to independently use it in their classroom (Fryer, 2003). Training

needs to focus on both teachers and students so student learning will benefit from this

pedagogical shift towards integrating technology into classrooms.

Journal of Literacy and Technology 110
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

Technology Reshaping Pedagogy

National education standards for students and teachers related to technology use in

classrooms were developed by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE,

2010) to focus on encouraging active engagement, participation in groups, offering frequent

interaction and connections to real world experiences. ISTE’s standards are supported by

performance-based standards for integrating technology into pedagogy from the Association for

Childhood Education International (ACEI, 2007) and by a position statement on technology use

in classrooms by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC, 2012).

As we move further into the 21st century, awareness of and responsiveness to emerging changes

in classroom environments are necessary. Computers will become a powerful learning tool and

resource which teachers may use to support collaborative learning in the classroom (Hyun, 2005,

p. 88). Teachers are encouraged to offer technological tools as engaging, authentic, and

collaborative modes of interaction among students in a classroom.

Many teachers believe that they have adopted technology simply by using electronic

worksheets or projecting information on screens for students, which is not engaging or

exploratory in nature. Teachers often utilize curriculum that promotes technology use in the form

of teacher-driven activities, electronic worksheets, rote memorization of information, and use of

computer labs to complete prescribed learning activities instead of student-led activities using

multimodal interactions for students to construct their own knowledge. This outdated type of

knowledge transmission is not responsive to the pedagogical changes incorporated in ISTE,

ACEI or NAEYC Standards for 21st-century learners. Specific guidelines encourage the use of

technology as a means to generate meaningful knowledge construction among students through

engaging, authentic and collaborative modes of social and technological interaction.

Journal of Literacy and Technology 111
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

Interviews conducted by Lisenbee (2009) on first-grade students regarding how it felt to

use an interactive whiteboard to complete a re-telling of a story found themes of engagement,

inspiration, and interaction. The students responded to interview questions with comments such

as “nice to work together”, “very good”, “It felt fun”, “special”, “awesome” and “I liked just

dragging it and making it falling down and making it small and getting them to go to new places”

(Lisenbee, 2009, p. 68-72). Their voices expressed themes generated from utilizing technology.

The comments reflected a classroom of students embracing a pedagogical shift to construct and

demonstrate their understanding of academic content using technology.

As teachers infuse technology into their pedagogy through technological training and the

integration of technological standards, classrooms are being reshaped to meet the needs of 21st-

century learners. These types of classes are rich environments providing endless cycles of

inquiry for students engaged in constructing knowledge during collaborative work. Schools are

acquiring technological tools at the same pace as technology is increasing exponentially in

availability and access. For example, schools purchased personal computers for classrooms to

use in computer labs then began providing personal computers for individual students to use in

classrooms. Interactive whiteboards, document cameras, mobile tablets and clickers were

purchased by schools adding layers of available technological tools to use in classrooms. While

students recognize that computers, laptops, cell phones, iPods, digital cameras, televisions,

videos, interactive whiteboards and the Internet are technological tools to use in classrooms;

teachers are slower to adopt new modes of technology.

When exploring technological tools available in classrooms, “Students and teachers must

become creators of information and ideas, not simply users of technology” (Burns, 2005-06, p.

51). “…we can explore ways to use technology effectively in the classroom, ways that add value
Journal of Literacy and Technology 112
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

to traditional curricula and reach students who fail to respond to traditional approaches” (Shields

& Behrman, 2000, p. 24). To support authentic learning experiences for students that focus on

their needs, abilities, and interests, teachers need to provide students with opportunities for

independent multimodal interactions. Authentic learning activities that incorporate independent

use of technology in a classroom support students’ innate desire to investigate their environment.

Authenticity in learning activities is an essential component of appropriate curriculum in

classrooms (Branscombe, Castle, Dorsey, Surbeck & Taylor, 2003). Teachers should keep in

mind that “effective technology integration must happen across the curriculum in ways that

deepens and enhances the learning process” to successfully reshape pedagogy (Edutopia, 2008,

p. 2). As such, choosing technology requires determining if it is the best tool for learning

(Murphy, DePasquaie, & McNamara, 2003).

Recommendations for Teachers

By incorporating technology into a classroom, some teachers have begun to reshape their

teaching and create appropriate classrooms for 21st-century learners. Balajhy’s (2000, p. 291)

interview with teachers suggests they use software primarily because it is "‘interesting and

motivational for students,' rather than for ‘mastering skills and knowledge'." Students want to

learn through activities that “promote higher level thinking, collaboration, speed, and

information evaluation—i.e., those competencies required for the 21st century” (Asselin, 2001, p.

50). Technology is the language and general mode of communication 21st-century learners use

to interact with each other. Teachers reimagining their classrooms and reshaping their

pedagogical knowledge and skills to include technology capitalizes on students’ motivation,

interest and ability to independently use technology while focusing on offsetting the generation

gap between students and teachers.

Journal of Literacy and Technology 113
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

Reshaping Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills

The connection between technology and student motivation is clear, but making changes

in pedagogy to routinely offer students the ability to complete technologically integrated lessons

is not happening regularly in classrooms. “Technology integration is a process, involving not

only the physical acquisition of tools …, but also important changes in the ways educators think

about their roles in the classroom and student roles” (Fryer, 2003, p. 4).

One method to change teachers thinking about their roles and the roles of the 21st-

century learners is to offer quality training on technological tools while implementing national

teaching standards related to using technology in classrooms. Applying theory to practice is a

much more efficient method for training teachers to use technological tools than lecturing them

about including new technology in a classroom. Teachers' resistance to change and perceptions

towards using technology directly affects their interest in training to use technology as an

instructional tool in a classroom and their interest in letting students use technology in a

classroom. These factors relating to perceptions and resistance to change significantly affect the

generation gap. The ability of teachers and students to reimagine the independent use

technology supports reshaping the teaching and learning process in classrooms.

Reimagining Independent Use of Technology

Teachers interest in reimaging and reshaping classrooms provide opportunities for

students to learn to use technology independently. The EMSCI Model provides exploration,

scaffolding, and practice for students to build the skills they need to use technological tools

independently. The EMSCI Model was created to "provide a structure for teachers to follow in

an effort to ensure better student learning of how to independently use technological tools….”

(Lisenbee, 2009, p. 123). Figure 1 provides a visual depiction of the EMSCI Model. The
Journal of Literacy and Technology 114
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

Figure 1. Levels of EMSCI Model

Journal of Literacy and Technology 115
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

beginning level, Exploration, provides the initial force creating the ripples in learning needed to

proceed through the other four levels which end with the ability of students to independently

complete activities using technology. The EMSCI Model provides teachers with traditional

instructional strategies embedded within a five-level process for teaching students how to

independently use technology: Exploration, Modeling with Mistakes, Scaffolded Instruction,

Classroom Problem-Solving and Independent Activities.

The first level, Exploration, provides time for small groups of two to four students to

explore technology without any instruction. Exploration offers intuitive and curious questions to

be answered kinesthetically and collaboratively while students manipulate and interact with

technology to determine what they know and want to know about this technological tool.

The second level offers time for teachers to make purposeful mistakes as they model how

to use the technology. This level, Modeling with Mistakes, is a core component providing a

space where students and the teacher feel more comfortable not being an expert on all modes of

technology. Viewing the teacher remaining comfortable with the learning process during initial

attempts to use technology while making mistakes takes some of the pressure off students trying

to use the technology also. Teachers model with mistakes during whole group instruction for

this level of the EMSCI model.

The third level, Scaffolded Instruction, is completed in a small group of two to four

students. Each group uses the technology while being observed by their teacher. The teacher

provides scaffolding, if needed, to assist each small group in successfully navigating any issues

using the technological tool. If the teacher is unable to provide scaffolding for an issue, the

group of students is encouraged to continue using the technological tool while the teacher takes
Journal of Literacy and Technology 116
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

notes to pitch to the whole group during the fourth level. Overall, the teacher attempts to remain

a notetaker allowing each group of students to attempt to resolve issues with technology on their

own. The “… teacher compiles a running list of issues that students have needed scaffolding

with the most. This list will be used for the classroom problem-solving meetings.” completed in

the next level (Lisenbee, 2009, p. 129).

In the fourth level of the EMSCI Model, Classroom Problem Solving, the problems and

solutions identified during the third level provide discussion points in a whole group setting.

This level embodies collaboration, analysis, and problem-solving while discussing the struggles

and successes encountered during the previous level. It provides peer-to-peer interaction and

exchanges to identify students as experts at inquiry-based processes.

The final level of the EMSCI Model is Independent Activities. The teacher provides

independent technological activities for each student to practice the strategies and skills learned

during their participation in the EMSCI Model. This level provides time for the teacher to

observe if all students can independently use technology or if some iteration of one or more

levels of the EMSCI Model would provide additional practice for some students.

Teacher’s knowledge about technology, comfort with technology, and perception of how

to use technology as an instructional tool in classrooms provides an impetus of opportunities for

student learning in a classroom. The EMSCI Model provides a new role for teachers as they

gradually release responsibility of technology to students. The EMSCI Model offers a process to

offset the generation gap between students and teachers by allowing and encouraging students to

use technology independently.

Offsetting the Generation Gap

Journal of Literacy and Technology 117
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

Constructivist teaching provides a necessary link teachers can use to counterbalance the

generation gap in a classroom. Twenty-first-century learners expect to construct their knowledge

using technology in a classroom. Constructivist teachers provide opportunities for students to

participate in meaningful learning experiences which actively engage students in using

technology to construct their knowledge. Student-centered classrooms focused on using

technology in authentic ways create appropriate classroom environments for 21st-century

learners. Forcing a pedagogical paradigm shift for teachers assists teachers in reshaping the way

they teach which also reshapes the way students think and learn in classrooms. Therefore, a

paradigm shift focused on constructivist teaching methods and technology use would provide a

counterbalance for the generation gap between students and teachers.

Effective integration of technology must utilize research-based instructional methods

which are known to enrich the learning process for students. Four key components of

constructivist teaching which support and complement technology use in classrooms are: group

participation, active engagement, connection to real-world experiences and frequent interaction

including feedback. (Becker, 2000; Edutopia, 2008; ISTE, 2010).

Teachers using constructivist teaching methods have student-centered classrooms

reflective of the needs of 21st-century learners. These classes provide learning experiences

which are active, inquisitive, exploratory, collaborative and able to represent knowledge in

authentic ways. Incorporating technology into the social environment of a classroom offers

opportunities for students to construct knowledge through social interaction and play using

technology (Berk & Winsler, 1995; Branscombe, et.al., 2003; Jacobs, 2010; Nanjappa & Grant,

2003; Piaget, 1954; Rakes, Flowers, Casey, & Santana, 1999; Vygotsky, 1986).
Journal of Literacy and Technology 118
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

Teachers need to be certain that technology is reflected in their classroom environments

because “…today’s education system faces irrelevance unless we bridge the gap between how

students live and how they learn” (Grabe & Grabe, 2007, p. 19). A student-centered classroom

including technology would not only generate students' understanding of concepts but, iteratively

generate new connections to real world events and experts. Use of technology in classrooms

assists students in gaining skills needed to be productive citizens after graduation and support a

shift in teachers’ pedagogy (Gura & Percy, 2005; Grabe & Grabe, 2007).

Conclusion

In the 21st century, technology has become a pervasive presence for teachers and students

in and out of the classroom causing a generation gap between the two cohorts in their

expectations for using technology in classrooms. Teachers are encouraged in standards to

engage students with technology to actively explore, participate in collaborative groups, interact

with others and make connections to real world experiences. Additionally, teachers are

encouraged to embrace and embed technology as another instructional method in classrooms so

students can learn to use technology independently to construct knowledge. The EMSCI Model

offers a process for both students and teachers to work towards independent use of technology in

a collaborative manner. Changes brought about by teachers reimagining their classrooms and

reshaping their pedagogy will fade the shadows of a generation gap due to the shining success of

teachers and students independently using technology in classrooms.

Journal of Literacy and Technology 119
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

References

Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI). (2007). 2007 ACEI/NCATE

Elementary Education Standards and Supporting Explanation, Retrieved on July 18,

2010, from http://acei.org/wp-

content/uploads/ACEIElementaryStandardsSupportingExplanation.5.07.pdf

Asselin, M. (2001). Literacy and technology. Teacher Librarian, 28(3), 49-51.

Balajhy, E. (2000). Issues in technology: The effects of teacher purpose on

achievement gains. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16, 289-294.

Becker, H.J. (2000). Who’s wired and who’s not: Children’s access to and use of computer

technology. The Future of Children: Children and Computer Technology, 10(2), 44-75.

Berk, L.E., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children's learning: Vygotsky and

early childhood education. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education

for Young Children.

Branscombe, N.A., K. Castle, A.G. Dorsey, E. Surbeck, & J.B. Taylor. (2003). Early

childhood curriculum: A constructivist perspective. New York, NY: Houghton

Mifflin.

Burns, M. (2005-06). Tools for the Mind, Educational Leadership, 63(4), 48-53.

Buzhardt, J., & Heitzman-Powell, L.S. (2005). Stop blaming the teachers: The

role of usability testing in bridging the gap between educators and

technology. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in

Education, 4, 13-29.

Calvert, S., Rideout, V., Woolard, J., Barr, R., & Strouse, G. (2005). Age, ethnicity, and
Journal of Literacy and Technology 120
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

socioeconomic patterns in early computer use: A national survey. American Behavioral

Scientist, 48, 590–607.

Chiong, C., & Shuler, C. (2010). Learning: Is there an app for that? Investigations of young

children’s usage and learning with mobile devices and apps. New York: The Joan Ganz

Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.

Christensen, C.M., Horn, M.B., & Johnson, C.W. 2008. Disrupting class: How

disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw

Hill.

Clements, D.H. (1999). American Association for the Advancement of Science Dialogue on

Early Childhood Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education: First experiences in

science, mathematics, and technology--Young children and technology. Retrieved on

September 18, 2005 from

http://www.project2061.org/publications/earlychild/online/experience/clements.htm

Coley, R., Cradler, J., & Engel, P.K. (1997). Computers and classrooms: The status of

technology in US schools. ERIC Documents # ED412893. Retrieved March 13, 2009,

from

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.j

sp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED412893&ERICExt

Search_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED412893

DeBell, M., & Chapman, C. (2003). Education Statistics Quarterly. Computer and internet use

by children and adolescents in 2001. Retrieved on September 18, 2005, from

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_5/5_4/2_1.asp
Journal of Literacy and Technology 121
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

Edutopia Staff (2008). Why integrate technology into the curriculum? The reasons are many.

Edutopia: Technology Integration, Retrieved January 5, 2009, from

http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-introduction

Escobar, M., & Cappella, E. (2000). What children think about computers. The

Future of Children: Children and Computer Technology, 10(2),186-192.

Fryer, W. (2003). Campus technology leaders. TechEdge, Retrieved on July 18, 2010 from

http://www.tcea.org/Publications/TechEdgeArchives.asp#Summer2003

Grabe, M. & Grabe, C. (2007). Integrating technology for meaningful learning. New York,

NY: Houghton Mifflin.

Gura, M. & Percy, B. (2005). Recapturing technology for education: Keeping tomorrow

in today’s classrooms. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education, Inc.

Gutnick, A. L., Robb, M., Takeuchi, L., & Kotler, J. (2011). Always connected: The new digital

media habits of young children. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame

Workshop.

Hyun, E. (2005). A study of 5- to 6-year-old children’s peer dynamics and dialectical learning

in a computer-based technology-rich classroom environment. Computers and Education,

44, 69-91.

Ihmeideh, F. (2010). The Role of Computer Technology in Teaching Reading and

Writing: Preschool Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices, Journal of Research in

Childhood Education, 24, 60-79.

International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2010). Standards for Global

Learning In The Digital Age. Retrieved on July 18, 2010, from

http://www.iste.org/standards.aspx
Journal of Literacy and Technology 122
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

Jacobs, H.H. (2010). Curriculum 21: Essential Education for a Changing World.

Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Lisenbee, P.S. (2009). Influences on young children’s behavior, engagement level and

representation during storytelling using an interactive whiteboard. Dissertation

Abstracts International. (UMI No. 3358965).

Murphy, K.L., DePasquaie, R. & McNamara, E. (2003). Meaningful Connections:

Using Technology in Primary Classrooms, Young Children, p. 12-18.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (January, 2012).

Technology and Interactive Media as Tools in Early Childhood Programs

Serving Children from Birth through Age 8 (A joint position statement of the National

Association for the Education of Young Children and the Fred Rogers Center for Early

Learning and Children’s Media at Saint Vincent Collegen). Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Nanjappa, A., & Grant, M.M. (2003). Constructing on constructivism: The role of

technology. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in

Education, 2(1), p. 38-55. Retrieved March 12, 2007, from

http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume2No1/nanjappa.htm

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.

Prensky, M. (2005). Adopt and adapt: Shaping tech for the classroom. Retrieved October 15,

2007, from http://www.edutopia.org/node/1423/print

Prensky, M. (2005-06). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8-13.

Prensky, M. (2008). The role of technology in teaching and the classroom.

Educational Technology, (Nov/Dec), 1-3.

Journal of Literacy and Technology 123
Volume 17, Number 3: Fall 2016
ISSN: 1535-0975

Rakes, G.C., Flowers, B.F., Casey, H.B., & Santana, R. (1999). An analysis of instructional

technology use and constructivist behaviors in K-12 teachers. International Journal of

Educational Technology, 1(2), 1-17.

Shields, M.K., & Behrman, R.E. (2000). Children and computer technology:

Analysis and recommendations. The Future Of Children: Children And

Computer Technology, 10(2), 4-30.

United States Department of Education (2004). Toward a new golden age in

American education: How the internet, the law and today’s students are

revolutionizing expectations. Retrieved March 13, 2009, from

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/2004/plan.pdf

Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of

Technology Press.

Wilhelm, J.D. (2004). Inquiring minds use technology! Voices From The Middle 11 (3)

45-46.