Because the world is the world, technology is present in our everyday life. In the Lower Paleolithic, Homo habilis began to use stone tools: since then, humanity has not stopped creating new objects based on elements found in its immediate environment. We must not forget that technology is everything created by man and cannot be invented by nature itself.
These elements change the way we do things and significantly improve our quality of life. But all was not rosy. Every technological innovation has its detractors. The current era is not going to be any different, and the current, increasingly prevalent, society wants to attribute all its ills to technological advancements. In the field of education, the debate centers on the following dichotomous, and, in my opinion, trend: Should computers be used in the classroom?
All technologies have implicit advantages and disadvantages. In education, they translate into aids and risks to teaching, learning, and health. There isn’t, and never will be, any study that definitively refutes this question. So, the initial question should not be that. There is no debate on whether or not to use digital technology in the classroom. Technological advances are here to stay, and positioning ourselves for or against contributes nothing to education. Also, some see it as a battle between digital and analog, in which one of the two technologies must win. They forget that, like computers, screens, mobile phones and other digital devices, the textbook they demonize is a technology subject to advantages and disadvantages.
We live in tumultuous times, a period of great social change that continues to influence new educational policies. This creates confusion among teachers and students and families about creating the 21st century citizenry we want to promote in our schools. However, the importance of developing digital competence in our students remains an immutable constant.
From the promulgation of the Organic Education Act in 2006 to the most recent Organic Act to promote the Organic Education Act in 2020, the focus of training in the compulsory phase has been to promote a ‘diverse’ student body. This vision implies that students should acquire basic knowledge in fields such as literacy, mathematics and languages, social, natural, arts and cultural sciences and meet the challenges of the information and communication society.
DigComp (Digital Competency Framework) initiative1, promoted by the European Commission in 2013 and continuously updated since then, obliges education systems at national and regional level to take various measures to ensure multiple competencies among their students, in five key areas. A school leaver will be able to: 1) search for, evaluate and organize information; 2) communicate, collaborate and participate in digital environments; 3) creating, editing and publishing digital content; 4) protect you from the risks of using technology and guarantee your privacy; and 5) identify, analyze, and solve common problems related to the use of technology tools.
Unfortunately, the common practice of some educational systems is to implement technology in schools mindlessly and blindly to achieve multiliteracies among their students. This way of acting based on the unique benefits of digital technology in educational processes has a misconception, which is not supported by any evidence. The scientific literature does not support the hypothesis that more technology in the classroom produces better educational outcomes. Therefore, it cannot be confirmed that there is a direct, linear and automatic relationship between these two variables, beyond the causal effect of improving students’ digital competence.
In the field of educational technology, which aims to study the use of various technological tools and resources to improve teaching-learning processes, there is a principle that all researchers consider: the question is not technology, but pedagogy. Any tool or resource integrated into education should be analyzed from the perspective of the objective to be achieved. So, the question we need to ask ourselves is what do we want to achieve?
If we talk about compulsory education, we must take into account the need to respond to the diversity of students in our classrooms. Recent advances in neuroscience, derived from scientific studies, inform us of this variation in learning. However, learning can be facilitated through a model called Universal Design for Learning.2 (Massachusetts Center for Applied Excellence, 2018) is based on three interdependent neural networks: an affective network that controls student engagement in learning, a recognition network that allows for the processing of necessary information, and a strategic network that guarantees action and expression of what has been learned.
This model suggests using different options, strategies and resources. It is in the multiplicity of these supports that we find the answer to our dilemma. Screens, computers, and the Internet have a place with a great continuum of other tools based on pre-reflection and design that embraces the diversity of our students and plans for the average student who doesn’t try to figure out the impossible. What is important in our compulsory education schools is the planning of activities that use various examination tools, including digital tools, which guarantee all students without exception and regardless of their individual characteristics, their motivation and commitment, their own information processing. Practice what you learn.
In conclusion, it is important to underline that digital technologies are not spoiling education, but that is not to say that they are improving it as they become normalized in our classrooms. Only peaceful planning towards a school for all can have a positive effect on their integration.
1 For more information, visit the EU’s DIGCOMP portal: https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/digcomp_en
2 For more information, visit the CAST page: https://www.cast.org/impact/universal-design-for-learning-udl
