Technology in the classroom: Banking education or opportunities to learn?

ABSTRACT

This study examines the limited use of technology as a potential obstacle to educational progress and development. Grounding our work in social justice issues reflected in the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, “banking education” was reviewed to articulate this use of technology, including the limited students’ engagement, opportunities to learn, and development of information/computer literacy. In the study, we introduce the notion of W³ (what technology is being used, why, and who is using it) to offer specific lenses (Table 1) related to K-12 technology-integrated instruction in regard to power structures. We offer suggestions on how teachers and educators can use these lenses to create technology-integrated activities to ensure equitable and meaningful learning opportunities. We provide additional recommendations on how administrators and policy makers can avoid banking (students’) education and support teachers’ implementation of effective technology platforms as major drivers for empowering students’ learning, progress, and future careers.

Introduction

Cambridge Assessment for International Education (CAIE) surveyed 20,000 respondents from more than 100 countries the use of technology in education. The report found the U.S. leading the world in the highest use of technology in K-12 classrooms, including desktop computers (75%), smartphones (74%), and smart boards (60%; Cambridge Assessment for International Education [CAIE], 2018). Since the COVID-19 pandemic, K-12 classrooms in the U.S. incorporated technology-integrated teaching approaches more than ever without sufficient teacher preparation. This destabilized classroom teaching and learning introduced technology as a required component. When the in-person operations resumed, it is unclear if K-12 classrooms resembled their pre-pandemic norms. While teaching practices and students learning accepted the “technology-dependent” classrooms, time allocated for students to engage with each other and with problem posing, actively learning and exploring new content seems no longer the classroom norm. Thus, in this article, we discuss this controversial role of technology in K-12 classrooms. Specifically, we discuss: How can we avoid the pitfalls of ineffective use of instructional technology at the expense of students’ learning opportunities.

We begin our discussion by examining the literature on the role and use of technology in K-12 education. Next, we discuss the work of Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, to help teachers and educators better understand the pitfalls of how ineffective use of technology may impact students’ (genuine) learning, their academic development, ability to think critically, and take ownership of the decisions related to their learning and future. Specifically, we use this work to discuss socially just teaching and learning via technology, including specific implications that help to articulate the impact of technology on students’ opportunities to learn, negotiation of meaning, and distribution of power in the classroom. We offer suggestions to teachers on how to map their technology-integrated activities to ensure equitable and meaningful learning and outcomes (Gee, 2005). We also provide recommendations on how administrators and policy makers can avoid banking (students’) education and support teachers’ implementation of more effective technology platforms as major drivers for empowering learning in their classrooms (Coleman & Money, 2020).

Background literature

Technology in the K-12 classroom has been traditionally used as a supplementary tool, assisting teachers in organizing and displaying curriculum content, which is considered as technology’s conveyance role. Conveyance technologies are used to “transmit and/or receive information” (Dick & Hollebrands, 2011, p. xi), which can include presentation, communication, sharing, collaboration, and assessment/monitoring/distribution. In addition to assisting teachers, technology can facilitate students’ higher-order thinking, improve students’ foundational understanding of content, enhance inquiry-based teaching and learning as early as elementary grades, and aid students in scientific computations and basic skills (Hähkiöniemi, 2013; Ran et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2010). For example, mathematical action technologies (e.g., dynamic geometry apps, mathematical virtual manipulatives, computer simulations) can be used for promoting proof, presenting and connecting multiple representations, supporting reasoning, and using technology as a learner for students to teach (Dick & Hollebrands, 2011).

However, most studies also claim that the impact and effectiveness of technology on students’ learning largely depends on the ways in which the students interact and engage with technology, and the purpose behind the use of the tool in addressing specific learning objectives (Pierce et al., 2010; Ran et al., 2021). For example, when studying the use of handheld technology (HT), in nearly all classrooms HT offered additional pedagogical opportunities that did not previously exist in technology-free classrooms. These opportunities included empowering students to explore topics and matters that were not accessible “by-hand” (e.g., sketches, graphs, formulations, data displays, heavy computations, tabulations). Simulations were also found to help students in taking ownership of their work and being able to direct their own learning and share their work and findings with their peers more easily (Pierce et al., 2010). However, the presence of HT changed the didactic contract and the sources of power and authority in the classroom, with HT becoming an added (and often alternate) source of authority. Furthermore, students can see technology as the main learning objective of the lesson, whereas the teachers view the math content as the primary teaching objective, and the mismatch between the teachers and students’ perceptions about the lesson objectives often led to unanticipated (or unfavorable) outcomes (Pierce et al., 2010). Also, strong feelings of responsibility to know how to teach the technological skills and how to use the tool to explore content, in addition to teaching the subject, often are the primary reasons for why teachers halt the use of technology in their classrooms (Baniahmadi et al., 2021; Lund et al., 2014; Statista Research Department, 2016).

Indeed, researchers argue that the impact of technology on student learning depends on how effective, meaningful, and successful the technology implementation is in the classroom (Parker et al., 2008). In the past, technology in the classroom was limited and ineffective, due to accessibility, functionality, and utility, which were considered prominent barriers in technology integration (Clark & Luckin, 2013; Ertmer et al., 2012; Goktas et al., 2013). In the last 20 years, the number of educational digital resources, including devices, contents and tools have burgeoned and more mobile-friendly and affordable (Bulman & Fairlie, 2016; Snyder et al., 2016). However, the successful implementation of technology left educators more work to do, requiring layers of effort, including extensive and careful pedagogical reflections, changes in beliefs about the role and purpose of technology for teaching and learning, and the users’ (teachers, students, and administrators) knowledge and skills of using technology (Instefjord & Munthe, 2017).

Banking education vs. empowered learning opportunities

This section reflects on technology use in K-12 classrooms, including the pandemic-persevering classrooms. During the pandemic, technology greatly influenced teachers’ decision-making and curricular choices, “more teachers chose teacher-made and online supplemental resources than traditional published curricula” (Baniahmadi et al., 2021, Shifts Away from Published Core Curricular, para 2). Hence, integrating technology requires teachers to make pedagogical decisions and have digital competence, including personal, professional, and pedagogical skills in using technology purposely, meaningfully, and effectively (Lund et al., 2014). The term banking education in Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed raises questions that directly address the processes and beliefs that inform teachers’ decisions. Banking education suggests that students can learn by, metaphorically, opening the head and pouring information in. This may potentially create distinct results: (1) a lack of critical thinking and negotiation of understanding and (2) a distribution of power that is insurmountable for the students because someone, somewhere is determining what (and via what methods) information is being poured.

Banking education literature raises concerns about distribution of power in a technology-integrated classrooms. We introduce the notion of what, why and who (W³) to discuss the decisions regarding what technology is being used, why it is being used, and who is using the technology, directly impact students’ opportunities to learn and their power to partake in decisions that directly impact their learning and future. For the purpose of this article, we define and articulate the W³ as follows: a) who (leading agents or benefit holders) is making the final decisions regarding the classroom use of technology, and who in the classroom is using the “chosen” technology and benefit from the process; b) what technology is being used and what technological competencies are being assumed/expected from the key players (teachers, students, parents, and administrators); c) why is particular technology/tool is being used, particularly the specific reason(s), goal(s), purpose(s), and intention(s).

Distribution of power

When considering the distribution of power many critics argue that students, in general, hold little to no power in the day-to-day expectations, decision-making, and learning experiences of school and classroom culture, which Freire’s work denotes as the oppressed. This can be debated and is, of course, not an all-inclusive fact. However, students are expected to abide by the rules and expectations of their schools and classrooms and they have very little power and control. Hence, the main question is: If students don’t have any control and don’t hold the power, who does? We argue that teachers and administrators hold the power with many of the day-to-day experiences, but as has been indicated during the COVID-19 pandemic, that power, if held at all, was much more tenuous. Schooling is becoming less familiar to students and these power structures are in flux and in demand of our attention, as addressing students’ oppression and promoting students’ choices and voices in the decision-making processes related to their classroom learning directly affect their lives and future careers (Tyler, 2020; Owens et al., 2022).

Since the pandemic, educational settings continue to change with increasing prevalence and presence of technology in the classrooms. The heavier the reliance on technology, regardless of the role it holds, the more power the oppressed (students) are relinquishing (Nel, 2017). Hence, to help investigate the use of technology and truly examine why technology is being used, we reflect on Freire’s notion the culture of silence in terms of technology integration in education, and the possible outcomes that may be involved in the process, including the practice of freedom.

For example, one’s self-awareness of power (or lack of), as determined by their social reality, is a required component for the practice of freedom (Freire, 1985). Once a person realizes the power relationships defined within the situation, in this case, school, there is a path to dignity. Dignity is the true precursor to hope, and with hope an individual is able to transform the social reality and world (McKenzie, 2021). While the ultimate goal is to regain freedom, what does that look like for schools and students? Specifically, how do students become “freer” while using technology for/during their educational experiences?

In regard to conformity, as it relates to what technology is being used in the classroom and why, we use the Freirean term Praxis instead of partnership. Praxis is the act of reflecting, dialoguing, and revising the conditions of the reality in effort to transform the reality to one that is more humanizing and attends to the practice of freedom for the students (and teachers) in the classroom (Freire, 1985). Hence, in this paper, we focus on the roles of technology in K-12 classrooms, specifically as it relates to what technology is being used and why, and who makes this (determining) decision, and we propose a specific relationship, called praxis partnership, as the foundation. This is the relationship between the key players in the classroom: the teacher, the student, and the technology. Which relationship holds the power and in which situations?

Praxis-partners defines humanizing and collaborative relationships between the empowered teacher (and others: administrators, parents, and state and national agencies), the students and the technology they use. Again, we use these terms broadly as we focus on the shifts of power in the classrooms that use technology as the channel to educate the future generation of students and make decisions that directly impact their learning, lives, and their future. We emphasize Freire’s (1985) argument that, while it is often necessary for persons within the oppressor role to work with the oppressed to change the narrative and current reality, for empowered praxis-partners to sustain the humanizing and collaborative relationship it is required and necessary for those in power to continually engage in dialogs about the implicit biases they may bring (or secure) to continue allowing them to maintain power.

Recommendations for technology integration

While some consider technology as a vehicle for educational reform (Christensen, 2002; Rohrbeck et al., 2003; Wright, 2011), others argue that, unless certain conditions are met, technology will not support student learning (Berrett, 2012; Finley & Hartman, 2004). Research has found various internal and external factors that directly influence the integration of technology, including student-related and teacher-related (internal) factors as well as the district administration and policy-related (external) factors (Hussar et al., 2020; McCulloch et al., 2018; Teo et al., 2008).

Recommendations for policymakers and administrators

Numerous studies found the lack of technical, administrative, and professional development support being the major barriers of technology integration in K-12 education (Drent & Meelissen, 2008; Ertmer et al., 2012; Kopcha, 2012; Mumtaz, 2000). Despite the continuous efforts of successful technology integration, researchers continue to document gaps between the amount of technology available and the teachers’ use of technology (and the types of technology being used) in their classrooms (Kopcha, 2012; Petko, 2012; Zhao et al., 2002). We define “the use of technology” broadly, however, we also recognize that certain subjects, for example, mathematics and sciences, require different types and more complex technology tools and skills to teach those subjects. Given the high-stakes nature of these subjects, professional development in mathematics and sciences are often at the forefront of district’s decisions, as many districts use students’ performance data to identify “areas for improvement” to allocate professional development funds. Furthermore, since many mandatory state-testing are now being administrated via technology, students’ computer/technology literacy is becoming a “hot topic” of district discussions as well.

However, there is a considerable mismatch between the districts’ definition of computer/technology literacy and the definition being used in educational and research communities. A U.S.-based survey of 2,800 respondents, including K-12 teachers, on specific barriers for technology implementation found that 41% of U.S. teachers reported “lack of training” as the biggest barrier, and more than 45% of teachers reported current school devices being “too old” and the internet/WiFi connections being “too slow” to accommodate new educational technologies (Statista Research Department, 2016). Even larger proportions of teachers (more than 60%) reported inadequate numbers of devices for students to use and schools/districts refusing to allocate funds to support the modern, meaningful, and innovative use of technology. Contrary to the common (but false) beliefs that teachers do not have “enough time in the day” to use technology, only 31% of teachers reported this, suggesting that majority of the U.S. teachers are ready and willing to integrate and make greater use of technology in their classrooms (Statista Research Department, 2016).

Until recently, computer/technology literacy mainly focused on helping students learn how to use technology. Educators have re-defined this definition to include a responsibility to teach students how to use technology for learning the content and to explore local and global issues. We, therefore, urge district administrators to revisit their definitions/understandings of computer literacy and begin promoting and supporting teachers’ daily work and professional development related to effective use of technology for planning lessons that achieve both: students’ genuine and meaningful learning and understanding of the subject and their computer technology literacy. Below, we provide five areas of development of information and computer technology (ICTs) literacy, including specific aspects of teachers’ and students’ knowledge and learning central to ICT-based lessons.

Recommendations for teachers and researchers

Students’ information and computer technology (ICT) literacy includes a range of knowledge and skills related to various technologies, as essentials of modern society, as they are becoming (routinely) integral components of classroom teaching, workplace environments, and homes. The definition of ICT literacy comprises five areas of development that all key players must understand and address (see Technology and Engineering Literacy Framework, 2014). These areas outline the use of technology to: (1) develop problem-solving strategies and construct and exchange ideas/solutions, (2) obtain and critically assess to conduct information research, (3) investigate local and global problems, advocate for possible solutions, and build models, (4) acknowledge and appropriately use the ideas of others, and (5) know, select, and use various digital tools for various purposes, including learning different subjects. These areas have been strongly advocated by national and international organizations (Nelson et al., 2019), including the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000).

To help students achieve these competencies and attain ICT literacy, we need skilled and knowledgeable teachers, ready (and equipped) to design lessons that address these goals. Below, we discuss teachers’ skills and knowledge required to do so and offer a specific lens that can help teachers design empowering support structures in their classrooms to offer meaningful and equitable learning opportunities through technology integration.

Teacher-related factors commonly found in the literature largely include teachers’ attitudes, visions, and beliefs toward technology, as well as their skills and experiences in using instructional technology, including teachers’ age and computer-based competencies (Drent & Meelissen, 2008; Kopcha, 2012). Research suggests that to effectively utilize technology for learning, teachers must have a strong “technological pedagogical content knowledge” (TPACK; Niess, 2005; Voogt et al., 2013). Specifically, in addition to pedagogical content knowledge, “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) attempts to identify the nature of knowledge required by teachers for technology integration in their teaching, while addressing the complex, multifaceted and situated nature of teacher knowledge” (http://www.tpack.org/).

However, studies show that having TPACK is not enough—teachers’ perceptions and beliefs play a significant role in when, why, and how they use technology in their classrooms (Ertmer et al., 2012). For high levels of effective technology integration, teachers’ beliefs must undergo a major shift: from using technology as a master and servant to integrating technology as a pedagogical partner and as an extension of (student’s) self (Drijvers et al., 2018; Goos et al., 2003; Ran et al., 2021). Table 1 outlines the role of technology and power structure. Table 1 was developed to offer teachers a lens to use as part of technology integration in the classroom, not only to help teachers ensure high levels and effective technology integration, but also to help them create and deliver more meaningful and equitable learning opportunities for students through the lens of shared power between the key players in education.

The lens discussed in Table 1 can help teachers strengthen their lesson planning and enhance technology-based lessons. Teachers can map their technology-based lessons within Table 1 to “see” how they address the W³, paying specific attention to what technology is being used, why it is being used, and who is using the technology. Technology as pedagogical partner and Technology as an extension of self might be more difficult for some teachers to implement, as these two notions require deeper TPACK and a strong teachers’ commitment to developing praxis-partnerships in the classroom, including shifting the power as the channel to educate the next generation and help students take ownership and make decisions that impact their learning, lives, and future.

Table 1. The (Em)powered structures in the technology-integrated classroom.

Technology as MasterDefined
	Technology delivers the work to be completed. Teachers and students are merely Operators with little to no power in determining the task, curriculum, or time allocated to complete (or not to complete) the task.
Who holds the power?	Local and state governance and district administration often determine the content, tasks, the importance of tasks, and time expectations (absent of real-time and learning conditions).
The Powerless	Teachers and students
Technology as Servant
Defined	Technology is used as a computational or representative tool for a variety of things:
	drill and practice, calculations, or other iterative algorithmic processes within a task.
Who holds the power?	District administration through the adoption of curricular programs that uses technology mainly for iterative algorithmic purposes, and their financial ability to purchase (or not purchase) such programs
	Teachers hold some degree of power as they teach these programs and assign these tasks to the students without modifications.
	Organizations, publishers, and companies also hold some degree of power by providing what they interpret as important options/programs for schools.
The Powerless	Students and, to some degree, teachers through limited choice of curriculum and tasks (and possibly tools), as well as conditions of accessibility.
Technology as Pedagogical Partner
Defined	Technology is used by the students to access digital tools or applications that can assist learners with tasks or in better understanding of a new concept and by the teacher to integrate multiple problem-solving strategies within a lesson
Who holds the power?	Teachers by determining the technology tool(s) and the problems students must solve and providing exposure to the idea of students seeking information for a more thorough understanding of a concept as determined by the teacher including instances when teachers supplement district-adopted programs with different lessons/tasks/topics/tools.
The Powerless	Students have limited power in the choice of the technology tools, problems, tasks, and the type of information exposed and explored.
Technology as Extension of self
Defined	Technology is an integrated extension of the student. Together, the student and technology work to create new representations of ideas and concepts and build upon the learning of others in an emergent way. This is essentially the “Create” level of the new Blooms.
Who holds the power?	Students by experimenting with different technology tools, create, and explore various ideas, problems, issues, and code and create new (and their own) knowledge and information using technology and teachers’ and peers’ assistance.
The Powerless	Organizations, publishers, companies, local and state governance, and district administration—students are provided freedom and authority to truly explore and create (and take risks while exploring and creating), and teachers and peers serve as assistants in this process, without taking away the power from the student/learner.

Conclusions

The nature and use of technology in the current classrooms must undergo a substantial (and necessary) shift: from teaching students how to use technology, and how to use technology to take high-stakes tests, to teaching students how to use technology for learning. To help make this shift, we offer teachers and administrators a new lens, grounded in principles of power structures, to better understand the pitfalls of how the use of technology may inhibit students’ learning, development, and ownership. As part of our recommendations, we proposed Table 1 to help teachers and educators plan better lessons in efforts to offer more equitable learning opportunities in technology-integrated classrooms. With continued use of Table 1, teachers and district administrators will be able to provide a balance with respect to power and technology components in their lessons. Doing so will also help to better understand the distribution of power in the classroom and help make better decisions regarding district’s technology choices and adopted curricular programs, ensuring genuinely meaningful and equitable learning opportunities to students.

Additional Resources

1. Cyrus, V., & Flora, B. V. (2000). Don’t teach technology, teach with technology. The Mathematics Teacher, 93, 564-567.

Teachers often focus their technology lessons on how to learn about the tool or how to do computations using the tool, which are not especially interesting and do not attend to the best interests and full potential of the learner. This article illustrates that learning the technology tool can still occur during the concept and content exploration and development, and that such learning encourages the use of the technology, enhances students’ learning of the concept/content, and helps them to investigate real-world problems. In this article, the authors demonstrate (through classroom examples) how technology furnishes opportunities for extending the original content of the lesson to include insights that could not be addressed otherwise.

2. McCulloch, A. W., Jennifer N. L., Lara K. D., & Cayton, C. (2021). Positioning Students to Explore Math with Technology. Mathematics Teacher: Learning and Teaching PK–12, 114, 738–49.

This article encourages us to think about digital equity issues in mathematics classrooms, including students’ opportunities to engage in meaningful mathematics and position themselves mathematically powerful when using technology. Students often use technology for practice or remediation purposes rather than opportunities to engage with high cognitive-demand tasks. This article discusses three characteristics and ways that position all students as mathematical explorers when using digital technologies: (1) enter a mathematical problem, (2) mediate mathematical discussions, and (3) build personal and powerful ways of mathematical thinking.

Freire Institute. Freire Institute at the University of Central Lancashire. https://www.freire.org/home.

This website provides introductory information about Paulo Freire, his life, common terms, notable quotes, and opportunities to work with others who share an interest in applications of Freire’s work in educational settings. This is a primer for beginning to integrate Freirean ideas and pedagogy into classrooms.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).