Additional Information - Disadvantages of Technology

(all references can be found on the Resource & Reference page)

Technology as a Distraction

Participants who did not use any technology outperformed students who used technology because the users of technology were likely to be off-task (Wood et al., 2012). When using laptops in particular, people can become distracted because of involuntary factors causing a shift in focus (Chun & Wolfe, 2001 as cited in Fried, 2008). The factors may be due to the “orientation and visual nature of laptops, along with pop-ups, instant messages, movement and lighting of text, and even things like low-battery warnings” (Bhave, 2002; Melerdiercks, 2005; Wickens & Hollands, 2002 as cited in Fried, 2008, p. 908). Additionally, students may use the laptops inappropriately which is distracting to themselves (Wood et al., 2012) and other students (Fried, 2008).

Some evidence suggests that technology distracts students and detracts them from learning (Fried, 2008). In one study conducted by Wood et al. (2012), participants who did not use any form of technology in the classroom were found to have outperformed students who used some form of technology. Thus, the study suggests that learners using technology are likely to engage in off-task behaviors, also known as multi-tasking, which is likely to hinder performance (Wood et al., 2012).

Laptops in the Classroom

Recent research in the areas of cognitive science and human factors suggest that laptop use interferes with learning (Fried, 2008). It is suggested that “human attention and capacity to process information is selective and limited” (Kahneman, 1973; Posner, 1982 as cited in Fried, 2008, p. 908). Too many sources of information can create a cognitive overload; hence, detract from learning. With laptops in particular, “The orientation and visual nature of laptops, along with pop-ups, instant messages, movement and lighting of text, and even things like low-battery warnings, make laptops inherently distracting” (Bhave, 2002; Melerdiercks, 2005; Wickens & Hollands, 2002 as cited in Fried, 2008, p. 908). For technology such as laptops, Chun and Wolfe’s research (2001) is pertinent as they found that “although attention is often controlled voluntarily, external influences and visual stimulations can result in involuntary shifts of attention” (as cited in Fried, 2008, p. 908). Therefore, the research demonstrates that when using laptops, it is easy to get distracted even when it is unintentional. Consequently, due to the classroom dynamics, laptops also pose more of a distraction to fellow students (Fried, 2008). Overall, the cognitive interference posed by laptops could spread from users to nearby classmates (Fried, 2008). Furthermore, Wood et al. (2012) suggest that digital technologies can impair performance and distract learning if used inappropriately.

Lack of Technological Knowledge and Support

Some teachers refuse to integrate technology because they feel like they don’t have the appropriate skills (Hew & Brush, 2007). Some teachers feel like they will not have support from experts available (Gundy, 2012), nor the support of other teachers (Gundy, 2012). It is essential for teachers to have necessary resources and technology-integrated lesson plans available to them for successful integration (Hew & Brush, 2007).

Hew and Brush (2007) suggest that most teachers lack the specific technology knowledge and skills due to insufficient training. As a result, more than 10% of elementary school teachers refuse to integrate technology in the curriculum due to their perceived lack of skills (Hew & Brush, 2007). Additionally, the integration of computer technology is something that teachers often feel as though they may have little support in doing (Gundy, 2012). This lack of support can come from the lack of availability to expert assistance to learn how to integrate technology effectively (Gundy, 2012). Feeling a lack of support can also come from the fear that other teachers will not support the integration of laptop technology, thus impacting the opinion other teachers have of them (Gundy, 2012). However, ironically it appears that the main support is from colleagues and not so much from experts (Gundy, 2012). For one teacher who took part in Gundy’s (2012) descriptive study, she spoke of how difficult it would have been to integrate technology had it not been for the prepared resources that were given to her. Evidently, for technology to be a positive instructional tool in the classroom, policy makers should help facilitate teacher knowledge and skills by providing them with the necessary resources, as well as create technology-integrated lesson plans (Hew & Brush, 2007).

Time and Instructional Challenges

With the integration of technology into teaching, a teacher must put in a significant amount of work (Becker, 1994; Snyder et al., 1992,, as cited in Gundy, 2012). Additionally, the teacher must adapt their teaching strategies for the effective use of technology (Gundy, 2012).

It is crucial that teachers are able to adapt to the technological advancements in order for meaningful learning to occur. As Becker (1994) and Snyder et al. (1992) reported: “Researchers estimate that it would take teachers at least five years of additional work to integrate computer technology fully and effectively into their teaching” (as cited in Gundy, 2012, p. 26). Besides the additional work, in order to successfully integrate technology in the classroom, a change in their teaching instructions are needed (Gundy, 2012). Although students may be more enthusiastic about studying a subject with the use of a PowerPoint presentation or video clips, they might spend more time and effort on the presentation itself, rather than researching the subject, hence hindering their learning.

Equal Access to Technology

It is important to teachers that students have equal access to technology inside and outside of the classroom (Gundy, 2012). Some feel that having students bring their own device to school that help with equal access but it creates new challenges for teachers such as: monitoring student activity (Hower & Whitford, 2015) and having to help students with individual devices (Hower & Whitford, 2015). When a student has to complete work using technology at home, students in a low-income family or living in remote areas are discriminated against because they are less likely to have access to technology (Chen, Gallagher-Mackay & Kidder, 2014).

Another challenge with integrating technology is addressed in Gundy’s (2012) study: equal access to technology. For the teachers in Gundy’s (2012) study, this equal access is essential inside and outside of the classroom. Therefore, the school must have a budget that would allow for students to have equal access to the appropriate technology but what may be more challenging is the access to technology outside of school. As this could get very expensive, some may say that the solution could be for students to bring their own device. The idea of “Bring Your Own Device” or BYOD is explored by Hower & Whitford (2015) in which they bring up some very interesting points about students bringing their own devices to school. When students are allowed to bring their own devices to school it is important to consider that this introduces a new challenge for the teacher to try and monitor what the students are doing on their devices (Hower & Whitford, 2015); by not paying attention or not setting clear boundaries, students could end up off-task and not learning. Additionally, with a student bringing their own device, the teacher becomes in charge of helping them with any technological problem that arises (Hower & Whitford, 2015); this may be very time-consuming, but it is important for everyone to be able to have a working device in order for their work to be completed. It is difficult for a teacher to assess what kind of access a student has to technology outside of school: specifically, 15% of secondary principals from surveys by Chen, Gallagher-Mackay and Kidder (2014) did not know what kind of access a student had to technology at home. Thus, if a student is required to do work at home that requires technology they may not be able to get their work done because they do not have access to the technological means to accomplish the task. Having students complete homework at home using technology discriminates against students that may have a low-income family: “98% of families in the top quartile have internet access, compared to only 58% of those in the bottom quartile” (Chen, Gallagher-Mackay & Kidder, 2014, p. 4). In addition to students in low-income families, the research by Chen, Gallagher-Mackay & Kidder (2014) reported that students who live in remote regions were more likely to not have access to technology at home.

Cost and Unreliability

Although 99% of elementary and secondary classes have access to computers and other high-tech equipment (Chen, Gallagher-Mackay & Kidder, 2014), it is important to note that these various forms of technology do come at a cost. Expenses include installation, repairs, as well as upkeep and maintenance fees, which can ultimately exceed the school’s budget (Chen, Gallagher-Mackay & Kidder, 2014). It is important to be aware that the cost of technology in the school can also come at the expense of other subjects (Monke, 2004). Lastly, technology can be unpredictable and unreliable, which can result in lost time in the classroom (Gundy, 2012).

Additionally, the cost, upkeep and maintenance expenses, and unreliability are all factors that are inherent to technology. As one teacher explained, the cost of technological equipment could exceed a science department’s budget for the entire year (Grundy, 2012), additionally, the cost of technology in the school for one subject could come at the expense of other subjects (Monke 2004). In particular, music and art programs have been cut in recent years while the amount of money spent by schools on technology has increased (Monke, 2004). This begs the question: does this increase of technology enhance learning more than the programs that are being cut (Monke, 2004)? Not only are the costs to install technology in the classroom expensive, but the cost to keep technology up to date and repair broken equipment can be significant and exceed the schools budget (Chen, Gallagher-Mackay & Kidder, 2014). In Ontario, students in 99% of elementary and secondary classes have access to computers at school (Chen, Gallagher-Mackay & Kidder, 2014). Additionally 58% of students bring their own devices to school (Chen, Gallagher-Mackay & Kidder, 2014). There is also a significant amount of teachers who rely on technology in their classes (Chen, Gallagher-Mackay & Kidder, 2014). What is important to note is that the use of these various forms of technology do in fact come at a cost, in order to support the use of everything the school needs a strong wireless network (Chen, Gallagher-Mackay & Kidder, 2014). However, this can be a challenge for many schools (Chen, Gallagher-Mackay & Kidder, 2014), therefore, the technology used by students and teachers may be limited as a result. Technology can be unpredictable and unreliable, which can result in lost time in the classroom (Gundy, 2012). This technological unreliability can include connection problems, as well as downloading and incompatibility issues (Gundy, 2012).