10 02 analysis

Children and ComputerTechnology: Analysis andRecommendations

Across the world there is a passionate love affair between children and computers . . . And more thanwanting [computer technology], they seem to know that in a deep way it already belongs to them. Theyknow they can master it more easily and more naturally than their parents. They know they are the com-puter generation.

Seymour Papert, The Connected Family, 1996

Feeding childrens passion for computers, billions of dollars in bothpublic and private funds are being spent to give children access inschool, at home, and in the community. Nearly every school is nowequipped with computers,1 and over two-thirds of our nations children haveaccess at home.2 But is computer technology improving childrens lives? Thisjournal issue examines how children are affected by the emerging world ofcomputers. It explores how computer use is affecting childrens developmentphysically, intellectually, socially, and psychologically; whether computers areincreasing or decreasing the disparities between rich and poor; and whethercomputers are being used effectively to enhance classroom instruction.

This article reviews the main themes of the journal issue by summarizinghighlights of both the promise as well as concerns surrounding childrens useof computers, and by focusing on factors society should consider whenmaking choices about the role of technology in childrens lives. Why isaccess important? Who needs access and for what? How can we assurethat access leads to positive learning experiences at school and at home? Ascomputers become ubiquitous in our daily lives, it is important to understandhow computer technology can enhance or detract from a childs growth anddevelopment. Computers are not an end in themselves, but a means to anend. We must determine what we want our children to experience and learnfrom their use of computers so that they are empowered to take control ofthis powerful new tool in their lives.

4

The Future of Children CHILDREN AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY Vol. 10 No. 2 Fall/Winter 2000

The Importance of AccessComputer technology has transformed soci-ety in profound ways. For better or worse,

the increasing pervasiveness of computertechnology is a reality no one can ignore.Computers are fast becoming integrated

http://www.futureofchildren.org

5

into nearly every aspect of daily livingfrom school to work, to banking and shop-ping, to paying taxes and even voting. Theyprovide access to a wide range of informa-tion without a trip to the library. Theyconvey personal messages in place of thepost office or telephone. And they competewith newspapers, radio, and television inproviding entertainment and news of theday.

Computer technology also has a pro-found effect on our economy. Not only arecomputers changing the way goods and ser-vices are manufactured, distributed, andpurchased, but they are also changing theskills workers need to be productive and earna living. Almost every job today requires atleast some knowledge of computers, and foran increasing number of jobs, productivity isdirectly related to an individuals level ofcomputer expertise.3 As the economy movesincreasingly to computer-based work, thechanges are bringing a societal transforma-tion as significant as the Industrial Revolu-tion. Just as society was transformed whenfamilies migrated from an agrarian way oflife to work in factories 200 years ago, in theDigital Age, computer technology is trans-forming society by enabling many people towork anytime, anywhere, freed from a work-place anchored in time and space.4

Political participation is also changingbecause of computer technology. TheInternet is increasingly the primary accesspoint for disseminating information aboutgovernment policies, programs, and ser-vices. E-mail lists and chat rooms havebecome popular vehicles for forming politi-cal coalitions at the national, state, and locallevels. In 1999, more than 23 million indi-vidual taxpayers (about 19%) filed theirreturns via the Internet, and the number isexpected to double by 2006.5 And in whatmany see as the wave of the future, the

nations first legally binding public electionusing the Internet took place in March 2000,when 42% of those voting in ArizonasDemocratic Party presidential primary casttheir ballots online.6

The public generally agrees that for chil-dren to participate socially, economically,and politically in this new and differentworld, they must acquire a certain level ofcomfort and competence in using comput-ers. National polls indicate widespread sup-port for providing children with access tocomputers to enable them to learn ade-quate computer skills and improve theireducation.7 In surveys, most parents andchildren report that they view computersand the Internet as a positive force in theirlives, despite concerns about exposure toinappropriate commercial, sexual, and vio-lent content.8 Most parents believe that theInternet can help children with their home-work and allow them to discover fascinating,useful things, and that children withoutaccess are disadvantaged compared to thosewith access.9 According to Chens commen-tary in this journal issue, in the minds ofmany parents and policymakers, equalityof digital opportunity is fast becoming syn-onymous with equality of educationalopportunity.

As a result, growing numbers of parentsare providing their children with access tocomputers at home.2,10,11 Among house-holds with children ages 2 to 17, home com-puter ownership jumped from 48% in 1996to 70% in 2000, while connections to theInternet catapulted from 15% to 52% overthe same 5-year period.2 This rapid diffu-sion of technology is quite phenomenalthe spread of Internet access has beendescribed as nine times faster than that ofradio, four times faster than the personalcomputer, and three times faster thantelevision.12



6 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN FALL/WINTER 2000

In addition, Congress has made it anational priority to provide all ournations children with access to comput-ers at school. Declaring that the use oftechnology can help students meet highstandards of learning, and that such use isessential to develop and maintain a tech-nologically literate citizenry and an inter-nationally competitive workforce, in 1994Congress enacted the Goals 2000:Educate America Act and the ImprovingAmericas Schools Act and created severalprograms to help elementary and sec-ondary schools acquire and use technol-ogy to improve the delivery of educationalservices.13 (See Appendix A by Linda G.Roberts, director of the Office of Educa-tional Technology, U.S. Department ofEducation.) Largely as a result of theseprograms, between 1994 and 1999, thepercentage of public elementary and sec-ondary schools with computers connectedto the Internet increased from 35% to95%.1

Children are spending an increasingamount of time with computers at schooland at home, yet surprisingly little system-atic research has examined the effects ofcomputer use on children. Nevertheless,as detailed throughout the remainder ofthis article, the limited data available,combined with the rich body of literatureon child development, learning, and chil-drens use of other media, suggest certaingeneral observations. First, childrenshealthy development requires involve-ment in a variety of physical and socialactivities. The time children spend infront of screens of any type should nottake up a disproportionate amount oftheir day. Second, parents, teachers, andother adults who work with children needguidance and support in their efforts toensure that all children learn to use com-puters effectively and responsibly. Morehigh-quality digital content and modelsof exemplary technology-supported prac-tices are neededuses of computers toeducate and inspire, not just entertain.And third, evidence suggests that use ofcomputers can improve learning amongchildren under certain circumstances, butthese circumstances may be more limitedthan parents and policymakers realize.Much remains to be accomplished if weare to ensure that our nations children

not only acquire the necessary skills to usecomputers effectively as a tool in theirdaily lives, but also benefit from technol-ogys potential to enrich their learningboth inside and outside the classroom.

The Risks and Benefits of UseExcessive, unmonitored use of computers,especially when combined with use ofother screen technologies, such as televi-sion, can place children at risk for harm-ful effects on their physical, social, andpsychological development. Childrenneed physical activity, social interaction,and the love and guidance of caringadults to be healthy, happy, and produc-tive.14 Too much time in front of a screencan deprive children of time for orga-nized sports and other social activities thatare beneficial to child development.15 Inaddition, children may be exposed to vio-lent, sexual, or commercial contentbeyond their years, with long-term nega-tive effects.16 To ensure healthy andappropriate use of computers both atschool and at home, childrens computertime must be limited and their exposureto different types of content must besupervised.

Limits on Extent of ExposureNeededAt present, excessive use of computersamong children, especially younger chil-dren, is not typical. National survey datagathered in spring 2000 indicate that chil-dren ages 2 to 17 spent about 34 minutesper day, on average, using computers athome, with use increasing with age.17(Preschoolers ages 2 to 5 averaged 27minutes per day, school-age children ages6 to 11 averaged 49 minutes per day, andteens ages 12 to 17 averaged 63 minutesper day.) Available data on computer useat school suggest that exposure in theearly primary grades, at least, is relativelymodest. A spring 1999 survey of 26 ele-mentary schools in the heart of SiliconValley, where computer use might beexpected to be high, found that although70% of teachers in kindergarten throughthird grade had their students do somework on computers, the students com-puter time averaged less than 10 minutesper day.18 These data suggest that younger


7Children and Computer Technology: Analysis and Recommendations

children in particular are not currentlyusing computers for excessive amounts oftime.

Usage is on the rise, however, andsome childrenespecially older teenageboyshave reported spending 4 hours aday or more using their home comput-ers.19 In addition, it appears that timespent using home computers does not dis-place much, if any, time spent watchingtelevision; instead, access to home com-puters appears to increase the amount ofchildrens overall screen time.20 Surveydata gathered in spring 2000 indicate thatwhen children between the ages of 2 and17 have access to computers and videogames as well as television, they spend, onaverage, about 5 hours a day in front ofsome type of screen, over an hour morethan children without such access.21

Children who spend an excessiveamount of time in front of computers andother screens are likely to be displacingactivities required for healthy develop-ment and increasing their risk of obesity.In addition, childrens increased com-puter time could expose them to harmfulimpacts on their eyes, backs, and wrists.22Although the number of studies docu-menting the relationship between chil-drens computer use and such harmfuleffects is limited, such studies, takentogether with findings on the effects ofother media on children and findings onthe effects of computer use on adults, sug-gest that the risks of excessive computeruse can be significant.

For example, although little systematicresearch documents the relationshipbetween childrens computer use andobesity, evidence does show that obesity inchildren is linked to excessive time infront of a television screendefined asfive or more hours a day.23 The sedentarytime spent in front of a computer screenlikely poses a similar risk.

Also, some researchers have issuedwarnings about the risk of repetitive straininjuries from use of computers at work-stations not well designed for children,and possible harmful effects on childrensvision from staring too long at a computerscreen.24 Most of the evidence concerning

these physical risks is inferred from stud-ies of adult use of computers in the work-place. For example, the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration(OSHA) within the U.S. Department ofLabor has reported that each year,230,000 workers suffer injury from over-exertion or repetitive motion, such as thatcaused by excessive computer use.25Citing the potential risks from, amongother things, using a keyboard again andagain, in November 1999, OSHA pro-posed new ergonomics requirements toreduce injuries among workers caused byexcessive computer use. Excessive use ofcomputers by children could put them atrisk for similar injuries. More child-focused studies are needed to determinehow much computer use is too much forchildren of different ages and how tointersperse breaks and provide ergono-mic supports to minimize risk.

Excessive computer use may also affectchildrens social development. By the ageof about seven years, a childs interactionswith family, peers, school, community net-works, and media all play an importantrole in the development of interpersonalskills and social competence.26 Computersare now part of that mix, and concernshave been raised that children who formelectronic friendships instead of humanfriendships might be hindered in devel-oping interpersonal skills.27 Such con-cerns are heightened by reports thatamong children ages 8 to 16, some 20%have computersand 11% have Internetaccessin their bedrooms,28 which sug-gests that a sizable number of childrenmay use computers in social isolation.Indeed, some research has documentednegative social effects from time spent oncomputers. For example, one in-depthanalysis of the effects of Internet useamong a group of 93 families found that,during their first year with access, teenswho spent more time online experiencedgreater declines in social involvement andincreases in their feelings of lonelinessand depression.29 Similarly, in the schoolsetting, although group use of computersis more common, concerns have beenraised about the possibility that comput-ers may be used to replace, rather thanaugment, child-to-child and child-to-teacher relationships.22



To minimize the increased risk of obe-sity, as well as several other harmfuleffects of extensive media exposure, theAmerican Academy of Pediatrics advisesparents to limit childrens time spentwith computers, video games, and othermedia to perhaps no more than one totwo hours a day, and to emphasize alter-native activities such as imaginative playand sports.30

Supervision of Activities andContent Quality NeededIn addition to the extent of time, the typesof activities children engage in whileusing computers can also affect theirintellectual, social, and psychological well-being. The allure of computers stemsfrom the fact that they can be used for awide range of purposes. Although 1998census data indicated children were stillusing computers primarily to play gamesand to run stand-alone software,31 theiruse of the Internet is increasing rapidly.17As of 2000, an estimated 21 million chil-dren and teens were accessing theInternet from home.32 And once online, achild can choose to engage in activitiesacross a wide range of possibilities. Whengames were the principal option, boysspent much more time with computersthan girls did.33,20 Now that the array ofnongame applications has widened, girlsreport use of home computers as often,and with as much confidence, as boysdo.34 Children of both genders surf theWeb for music and photos of movie stars,use e-mail to exchange messages withfriends, and especially among teens, usethe Internet to visit multiuser domains(MUDs) and chat rooms.

Not surprisingly, the effects of com-puter use vary significantly by the type ofactivity and the quality of content. Theexperiences of children playing violentcomputer games are quite different fromthose playing educational games; theexperiences of children visiting informa-tive, nonprofit Web sites are quite differentfrom those logging on to sites sponsoredby media conglomerates and toy compa-nies; and the experiences of childrenexchanging e-mails with friends andfamily are quite different from those com-municating with strangers in MUDs andchat rooms. What can be gleaned from

the research about the effects of variousexperiences is summarized below, but thepicture is sketchy and incomplete. Muchfurther research is needed before we havesufficient data to understand how differ-ent computer activities are affecting ournations children.

Playing GamesPlaying games has long been the mostcommon computer activity for children,especially younger boys. But computergames vary widely in terms of content andpotential effects. Some, such as SimCity,35have been shown to have considerableeducational value. Others, however, suchas Duke Nukem and Doom, expose chil-dren to extreme violence, possibly dispos-ing them to subsequent aggressivebehavior.20

As reported in the article bySubrahmanyam and colleagues in thisjournal issue, some studies suggest thatmoderate use of computers to play gameshas no significant impact on childrensfriendships and family relationships, andcan even enhance certain visual intelli-gence skills, such as the ability to read andvisualize images in three-dimensionalspace, and to track multiple images simul-taneously. Such skills, Subrahmanyam andcolleagues contend, can serve as animportant building block to computer lit-eracy, and may be especially useful in thefields of science and technology. However,Healy questions these claims in her com-mentary in this journal issue, noting thatthere is little, if any, evidence that thevisual-spatial skills fostered by computergames contribute in any meaningful wayto the academic skills needed for mathand science.

In addition, however, just as researchhas documented that watching violentfilms and television programming canlead to increased hostility and aggressionin children,36 some research also suggestsan association between playing violentcomputer games and increased aggres-sion.37 Although the causal direction ofthe association is unclear, the critical vari-able linked to subsequent aggressivebehavior appears to be the childs prefer-ence for playing such games. Accordingto Subrahmanyam and colleagues, the



amount of aggression and violence hasincreased in each generation of computergames, and parents are often unaware ofthe extent of the violence, even thoughmany of the most popular games have vio-lent themes.33,38 A 1998 content analysis ofpopular video games found that nearly80% had aggression or violence as anobjective.39 In September 2000, theFederal Trade Commission reported thatviolent computer games rated mature(for adults only) were being marketedaggressively to children under age 17.40We agree with the commission that sanc-tions should be imposed for such market-ing violations, and that parentalunderstanding of the ratings should beincreased by including the reasons for therating in all advertising and product pack-aging.

Use for HomeworkAfter games, the next most frequentlyreported activity on the home computerfor children over age eight is schoolassignments.31 While use of a home com-puter is widely assumed to have a posi-tive impact on childrens learning, littleresearch exists to confirm this assump-tion. The limited evidence available sug-gests that home computer use is linkedto slightly better academic performance,but these studies failed to control forother factors. Thus, it is difficult to knowwhether a childs academic performancereflects use of a home computer or agreater level of family income and edu-cationfactors that are highly corre-lated with both home computerownership and better academic perfor-mance.

Nevertheless, Subrahmanyam and col-leagues cite one well-controlled study of acomputer-based after-school programdemonstrating that children who partici-pated in the program achieved small butsignificant gains in reading, mathematics,computer knowledge, and grammar, werebetter able to follow directions, andscored higher on school achievementtests, compared with nonparticipants.These effects were found even though theprogram emphasized voluntary participa-tion in a mix of fun and learning activitiesrather than a structured instructionalintervention.41

Surfing the WebThe article by Montgomery in this journalissue describes the rich array of Web sitescreated for children by nonprofit organi-zations, museums, educational institu-tions, and government agenciessitesthat offer opportunities to form commu-nities with other children, to create origi-nal works of art and literature, and toexplore the world. For example, one site,Yo! Youth Outlook, sponsored by thePacific News Service, provides an onlineversion of a monthly magazine by andabout young people that lets childrenspeak for themselves.42 The site Parentsand Children Together Online, spon-sored by the Family Literacy Center atIndiana University, is designed to facilitateonline storytelling.43 Another site, PlanetYouth, sponsored by the U.S. Departmentof Housing and Urban Development, pro-vides colorful material and links to sitesdescribing Native American culture, his-tory, education, arts, and sciences.44

Yet Montgomery describes how, for themost part, educational sites are beingovershadowed by the heavily promotedcommercial sites, many of which are tiedto popular television shows and toy com-panies. Utilizing the unique interactivefeatures of the Internet, companies areable to integrate advertising and Web sitecontent to promote brand awarenessand brand loyalty among children,encouraging them to become consumersat a very early age. Companies are evenemploying a variety of strategies to facili-tate online purchases by children throughthe creation of digital wallets. Accordingto one industry report, teens spent an esti-mated $161 million online in 1999 andare expected to spend over $1.4 billion in2002.45

In addition, much information notintended for children is available on theWebsuch as instructions on how tobuild bombs, bulletin boards for hategroups, and sexually explicit imagerygiving rise to a host of concerns aboutexposure to inappropriate content.Although little research exists on theeffects of exposure to various types of Webcontent, as discussed in the article byWartella and Jennings in this journalissue, studies of the effects of other types



of media (including film, radio, and tele-vision) found that children were influ-enced by exposure to different types ofprogramming. For example, some studiesindicated that children who viewed morecartoons and action-oriented televisionprogramming were more impulsive andless analytic in their thinking, whereaschildren who viewed other types of pro-gramming improved their thinking skillsand academic performance.46 Earlierresearch on other media generally con-cluded that while the effects of media usecould be powerful, such effects are gener-ally mitigated by other important factors,such as the childs developmental leveland family circumstances.47

Communicating via the InternetChildrens use of the Internet to send andreceive e-mail and visit chat rooms ischanging the way many young peoplecommunicate with each other.48 The lim-ited research on such use, as detailed inthe article by Subrahmanyam and col-leagues, indicates that to the extent youngInternet users are honest about how theyportray themselves online (that is, theycommunicate as their real selves), andtheir online contacts are with family andfriends, there are few, if any, negativeeffects, and perhaps even some positiveones. Teens, especially, report that keep-ing up with local and distant friends is avery important use of the Internet forthem.20 In addition, the article byHasselbring and Williams Glaser in thisjournal issue notes that the opportunity tocommunicate with others through thecomputer can free children with specialneeds from the fear of being stigmatizedand can enable them to network withother children to share their feelingsabout having a disability.49 ThePatchWorx Web site is one example ofhow the Internet can provide an onlinecommunity for young people facing ill-ness and disability to share stories, ideas,laughter and tears, to learn from eachother, and to make friends with commoninterests.50

However, extended use of the Internetto access a virtual world of multiuserdomains (MUDs), multi-identity chatrooms, and multiparty games has beenlinked to increases in loneliness and

depression, and to the possible blurringof a childs ability to distinguish real lifefrom simulation. As described in the arti-cle by Subrahmanyam and colleagues, inthese virtual environments, where chil-dren assume multiple identities and inter-act with strangers, the distinction betweenreal life and simulation may not always beclear. In chat rooms, there is often no wayto know if one is interacting with a realperson or with a fabricated character.Studies suggest that immersion in a virtualenvironment can have powerful effects,yet little is known about this phenome-non.51 As younger children as well asolder children begin to participate morefrequently in MUDs and simulation envi-ronments, it becomes increasingly impor-tant to understand the impact of theseexperiences on childrens psychologicaldevelopment.

Research suggests that time spent inMUDs and chat rooms may be the under-lying cause of the increases in lonelinessand depression among teens mentionedearlier. In the study identifying this link,many of the teens said they frequentedMUDs and chat rooms specifically tointeract with strangers.20 When, overtime, they began to use the Internet tocommunicate more with friends andfamily, who tend to provide strongersocial support, the negative effectsdiminished.

In sum, research on the effects of com-puter use is in its infancy, and most find-ings are only suggestive. Indeed, currentresearch provides few clear answers tomany basic questions. For example, somestudies suggest that use of computers forplaying educational games, visiting non-profit Web sites, and doing homeworkmay provide intellectual and academicbenefits, but the gains are generally smallor inconclusive. Likewise, some evidencesuggests that use of computers for playingviolent computer games and visitingMUDs and chat rooms can have negativesocial and psychological effects on chil-dren, but these effects are often mitigatedby other important factors, such as achilds developmental level and family cir-cumstances. Thus, the extent of any nega-tive social or psychological effects is as yetunknown. More systematic, controlled



studies examining the broad range oftopics discussed above are needed tobetter understand the effects of computeruse on childrens development and tohelp parents and policymakers maximizethe positive effects and minimize the neg-ative effects of computers in childrenslives.

RECOMMENDATION

More public and private research dollarsshould be allocated to assessing the effectsof extended computer use and exposure tovarious types of computer content on chil-drens physical, intellectual, social, and psy-chological development.

Research takes time, however. Wecannot wait until studies are complete tobegin taking action to protect ournations children from potential risks. Tohelp parents and other adults protect chil-dren from inappropriate commercial,sexual, and violent content, many stepshave been initiated, as discussed below.Further action will be required if we hopeto not only protect children, but toempower them to use computer technol-ogy effectively and appropriately as toolsthroughout their lives.

Helping Children Be Safe and SavvyClearly, our foremost concern must be toprotect our children from harm. Even inthe absence of definitive research, stepsmust be taken to protect children frompotential risks through controls andcloser monitoring. While protecting ourchildren from harm, however, we mustalso strive to inspire. Children should beencouraged to use computers in ways thatinstill a thirst for knowledge and a zeal forpositive social engagement.

Efforts to ProtectGovernment and private initiatives havebeen introduced to help protect childrenfrom inappropriate content. For instance,

the Childrens Online Privacy ProtectionAct, passed by Congress in 1998, requiresparental permission before commercialWeb sites can collect personal informa-tion from children under age 13. Otherlegislative initiatives to prohibit the distri-bution of indecent content to minors viathe Internet have been introduced, butenforcement has been barred pendingconstitutional challenges as a violation offree speech.52 Meanwhile, several compa-nies have created a variety of filtering,blocking, and monitoring software toolsfor parents to safeguard their childrenfrom harmful content or predators.Although the effectiveness of blockingstrategies is a topic of continuing debate,data gathered in spring 2000 showed thatalthough just 5% of children surveyedknew how to circumnavigate such devices,only about one-third of all families withonline access used protective software ofsome sort.53 Further, the survey found thatabout half of all children with homeaccess to the Internet have no parentalrestrictions on the amount of time theyspend online or the type of content theyaccess.

RECOMMENDATION

Parents, teachers, and other adultsworking with children should limit theamount of time children spend usingcomputers and supervise the content chil-dren are exposed to, including games,software, and the Web.

Efforts to Improve QualityThe software and digital media industriesshould also be challenged to examine thelearning experiences being promoted toour nations children through their use ofcomputers. As noted by Montgomery,there is little doubt that the emergingmedia system will play a significant role inhelping children become consumers, thuscontributing to the growth of our econ-omy. But new media content should also


play a significant role in helping the nextgeneration become more engaged ascitizens, thus contributing to the healthof our democracy. A more proactivedefinition of quality content for chil-dren is neededone that involves theenhancement of childrens learningand development, not merely their free-dom from harm.

To ensure the existence and, indeed,the flourishing of civic content onthe Web, new partnerships betweenresearchers, software and Internet com-panies, and government agencies areneeded. As detailed in the article byWartella and Jennings, we know frompast experience that market forcesalone are not sufficient to provide qual-ity content for entertainment purposes,let alone for more altruistic purposessuch as the promotion of positive civicengagement. New incentives are neededto encourage the development of high-quality content that responds to thenoncommercial interests and needs ofall segments of society.54 In July 2000,media and technology executives, childadvocates, researchers, and federalgovernment officials began a dialogueabout creating incentives for providingquality content.55 Such dialogues shouldbe nurtured, with continued involve-ment of industry and input fromchildren, to help strategize how thepowerful capabilities of computers andthe Internet can be used not only toserve commercial and entertainmentfunctions, but to help fulfill our nationsfundamental democratic values.

RECOMMENDATION

Public, private, and nonprofit groupsconcerned with the role of computer tech-nology in society should support andencourage the dialogue that has been ini-tiated among researchers, software andInternet companies, and governmentagencies to create new incentives for devel-oping high-quality content for children.

Efforts to Promote Computer LiteracyAs Lipper and Lazarus note in theircommentary in this journal issue, par-ents can and should play a greater rolein guiding their childrens use of newmedia and advocating in the publicpolicy arena and marketplace for thedevelopment of relevant, high-qualitycontent. To help parents fulfill thisrole, various government and non-profit groups now provide resources,both in print and online, with tips onhow to use the Internet safely andproductively. But most children, andindeed, many adults, have difficultyunderstanding the complex relation-ship between programming, advertis-ing, and the basic economic structuresunderlying broadcast media generallyand the Web in particular. With train-ing, children as young as five years oldcan begin to become more criticalmedia consumers, but the ability tocomprehend media content and dis-cern underlying messages and motivesevolves slowly.56

Parents, teachers, other adults whowork with children, and childrenthemselves need media literacy train-ing to become safe and savvy com-puter users. Such training can helpusers understand the motives underly-ing various types of content on theWeb.57 According to the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics, researchstrongly suggests that media literacytraining can result in young peoplebecoming less vulnerable to the nega-tive aspects of media exposure andmore able to make good choicesabout how they spend their time oncomputers.16

Better ratings and labeling andqual i t y content cannot improvechildrens use of computers unless chil-dren are motivated to use the bettersoftware and log on to the higher-quality sites. Otherwise, as noted byDede in his commentary in this jour-nal issue, todays couch potatoesimmersed in television fantasy maybecome tomorrows couch fungusesimmersed in virtual environments, andthe higher-quality content will beignored.




RECOMMENDATION

Schools and community organizationsshould provide media literacy trainingfor teachers, parents, other adults whowork with children, and children them-selves to strengthen their critical under-standing of the motives underlyingmuch of the software and content foundon the Web and to empower children tomake good choices about their com-puter use.

Media literacy, however, views com-puters as analogous to television andother mediawith the user passively,albeit critically, receiving the contentprovided. Computer literacy mustencompass a more active role for chil-dren, one that empowers them to usecomputers to create, to design, toinventnot merely to receive informa-tion passively from the screen. To para-phrase Resnicks commentary in thisjournal issue, children must learn to usecomputers more like finger paint andless like television. To become computerliterate in this way, children must haveopportunities to use a broad range ofapplications, from word processing,spreadsheets, and graphics to simula-tions, networking, and programming.

Even the concept of computer literacy,encompassing a broad range of skills, is toomodest a goal, according to an increasingnumber of experts in the field, because exist-ing skills and applications quickly becomeoutdated.3 Instead, the concept of com-puter fluency has been introduced to cap-ture the notion of sufficient expertise withand understanding of computers to lay afoundation for lifelong learning. Computerfluency has been defined as the ability to usecomputers to express oneself creatively, toreformulate knowledge, to synthesize infor-mation, and to adapt to continuous change.Supporters of this view maintain that chil-dren must achieve computer fluency tobecome effective and responsible users oftechnology throughout their lives.

In August 1997, the National ResearchCounci l s Computer Sc ience andTelecommunications Board (CSTB)embarked on an effort to define the skillsand knowledge required to achieve com-puter fluency.3 Although the focus of theCSTB effort was primarily on college-leveleducation, the conceptual framework wasdescribed as a continuum, with relevance forK12 education as well. In a parallel effort tohelp define what children need to knowabout computer technology to live, learn,and work successfully in an increasingly com-plex and information-rich society, theInternational Society for Technology inEducation launched a collaboration todevelop national educational technologystandards (commonly referred to asNETS) for technology-literate students atthe K12 level. Representatives from ele-mentary and secondary schools, universities,corporations, foundations, and governmentworked together to generate a set of pro-files reflecting the technology skills neededat key developmental points to support learn-ing, personal productivity, decision making,daily life tasks, and lifelong learning.58 Foreach grade level, standards were proposedcovering six basic categories of skills:

Basic operations and concepts

Social, ethical, and human issues

Technology productivity tools

Technology communication tools

Technology research tools

Technology problem-solving and deci-sion-making tools

To ensure healthy, age-appropriate,enriching access to technology for all chil-dren, parents, teachers, and other adults whowork with children must feel well preparednot only to teach basic computer skills, but toempower children to use computers moreeffectively and responsibly in many differentways throughout their lives. Standards suchas NETS provide a useful guide to the tech-nology skills children need for the future. Tominimize the potential risks of excessive com-puter use, as a next step, guidelines for howmuch time children of different ages shoulduse computers each day would be helpful.


RECOMMENDATION

State and local education agenciesshould refine and adopt age-appropriateguidelines for childrens computer flu-ency. Such guidelines should be dissemi-nated to all elementary and secondaryteachers and incorporated into pre-ser-vice and in-service technology trainingsessions.

The Equity of AccessThe rapid growth of childrens access tocomputers and the Internet in the UnitedStates is impressive. Statistics suggest thatas of 2000, over two-thirds of U.S. childrenhave access to computers at home, andvirtually all have access at school. Yetunderneath the statistics are disparitiesthat reflect and exacerbate socioeco-nomic differences in U.S. society. A closerlook at the data reveals that, both at homeand at school, more advantaged childrenare much more likely than less advan-taged children to be provided opportuni-ties to learn to use computers effectivelyas tools in their lives and experienceenriched learning in the classroom.

Family Income Is Key to HomeAccessChildrens access to home computersvaries widely, based largely on familyincome. According to an analysis ofcensus data conducted by Becker for thisjournal issue, some 57% of children over-all had access to a home computer in1998, but only about 22% of childrenliving in families with annual incomesunder $20,000 had a home computer,compared with 91% of children living infamilies with incomes over $75,000.59Even when low-income families had ahome computer, it was far less likely to bebroadly functionalthat is, to have a harddisk drive, a CD-ROM drive, a printer, amouse, and connection to the Internet.Perhaps reflecting such limits, a recentreport from the U.S. Department of

Education indicated that while 21% ofstudents from low-income families hadaccess to a home computer in 1998, only5% reported using the Internet at home.60The 1998 census data also revealed differ-ences in access linked to ethnicity, apartfrom income. More recent data suggestthat differences based on ethnicity aloneare narrowing, however, and that anyremaining gaps can be explained almostentirely by differences in income.61Nevertheless, as long as income remains asignificant barrier to access, and house-hold incomes differ markedly acrossethnic groups, disparities in access amongethnic groups are likely to continue.

The history of dispersion of new tech-nologies suggests that initial disparitiesbetween the haves and have-notswiden until dispersion reaches a point ofsaturation or ubiquity. At that point, asDede points out in his commentary, thenew technology tends to create a moreegalitarian society. For example, the worldof universal telephone service is a moreequitable environment than was the worldof messenger boys and telegraph offices.Similarly, universal computer accesswould provide more equitable access toinformation and power to create content,unfettered by intermediaries, than domass communication tools that are con-trolled by a select few, such as with radioand television. Yet, even if computers con-tribute to greater egalitarianism, there arestill costs for those who are the slowest togain access, especially if significant dispar-ities in access persist for some time.

In addition, some groups may remainpermanently without access if dispersionis left to market forces alone. Experts dis-agree about the eventual size and signifi-cance of any such disconnectedsegments of society, however. On the onehand, despite steadily falling prices overthe past 15 years, the percentage of fami-lies acquiring home computers appears tobe leveling off across every income group.Among families with incomes under$30,000, the percentage owning comput-ers actually declined slightly, from 41% to40% between 1999 and 2000.61 Some ana-lysts believe this trend indicates that anincome gap in ownership of home com-puters may not be overcome by market



forces alone.11,61 The market has no inter-est in extending access to those not ableor interested in participating in the newdigital economy. Thus, market forces willnot necessarily serve the needs of thoseinterested in gaining access to the Web forsocial, educational, or political reasons,nor serve the needs of the very poor.54

On the other hand, other analystsbelieve that significant further marketpenetration, even among low-income fam-ilies, is likely. Internet-ready computerscan now be purchased for as little as $300to $400, and alternative devices can makeonline access even more affordable.62 Newhybrid systems, or Internet appliances,provide connection to the Internet with-out a hard drive for as little as $99, plusmonthly connection fees. Handhelddevices and other wireless technologiespromise additional inexpensive ways to goonline. Also on the horizon are the next-generation television and digital set-topboxes that can connect a television to theWeb. If penetration rates for Web TVare similar to those for cable TV, access tothe Internet among low-income familiescould increase dramatically. Even amongfamilies with incomes under $25,000, over70% have cable access in their homes.63Whether such devices will help equalizeaccess to computer technology and theInternet, or lead to a two-tiered system ofaccessone with premium functionalityfor the wealthy, and another with minimalfunctionality for the poorremains to beseen.

To help expand access to home com-puters and the Internet among low-income families, various strategies havebeen initiated or proposed to augmentfree market forces. For example, someemployers have sponsored programs tosubsidize employees home computerpurchases and monthly connection fees.64Some communication experts have sug-gested that the universal access policythat subsidizes low-income families accessto telephones in the home be expandedto include home access to computers andthe Internet. A federal initiative to subsi-dize low-income households purchase ofcomputers and Internet access was pro-posed in the fiscal year 2001 budget, butfailed to receive funding.65 To ensure that

computer technology helps create a moreegalitarian society rather than magnifysocioeconomic disparities, additional waysto expand home access for low-incomefamilies must be explored.

RECOMMENDATION

The U.S. Department of Commerceshould work with industry to expandopportunities for low-income families toacquire home computers and Internetaccess.

Community Access Can HelpBridge GapsDue to residential segregation by incomelevel, community effects can exacerbatethe already large family-level differencesin childrens access to computers. That is,children in low-income families withouthome computers also tend to live in low-income neighborhoods where they areless likely to have access through a neigh-bor or friend.66,67 To help increase com-puter access among low-income families,several programs, public and private, areproviding access at the neighborhoodlevel through libraries and communitytechnology centers (CTCs).

For example, the federal Education-rate (or E-rate) program provides dis-counts on the cost of telecommunicationsservices and equipment to all public andprivate schools and libraries, with thelargest discounts provided to those in low-income neighborhoods.68 With the helpof this program, thousands of librarieshave acquired Internet access.69 Anotherfederal program, the CommunityTechnology Center program sponsoredby the U.S. Department of Education, hasprovided funding to develop 450 centersin underserved communities across thecountry, and more are planned for thefuture. In addition, private foundationshave played a major role in helping manylibraries and CTCs get their programs up




and running. For example, in collabora-tion with state library associations, theGates Foundation pledged $200 millionto equip public libraries in low-incomecommunities across the United States andCanada with computer hardware, soft-ware, and Internet access.70

Library and community center tech-nology programs can provide wonderfulopportunities to introduce children tointeractive and creative uses of technol-ogy. At the Computer Clubhouse inBoston, for example, inner-city childrenuse computers to tell engaging stories andlearn complex ideas. Mentors guide thechildren in using leading-edge software tocreate their own artwork, animations, sim-ulations, multimedia presentations, vir-tual worlds, musical creations, Web sites,and robotic constructions.71 However,most CTC programs focus on communitymembers generally and may not have acomponent geared specifically to chil-dren.72 Those that do may not be staffedwith workers trained in more sophisti-cated uses of technology or age-appropri-ate skills for children. Steps should betaken to incorporate a focus on childreninto more library and CTC programs andto improve worker training.

RECOMMENDATION

Public and private funders should sup-port efforts by libraries and communitycenters to include components withintheir technology programs focused specif-ically on children and to provide staff withtraining in the skills and types of exposureappropriate for children of different ages.

It is questionable, however, whethercommunity access points such as librariesand CTCs can reach a majority of low-income children. Although subsidies andfunding to extend access in disadvantagedcommunities have since increased, in1998 fewer than 3% of low-income chil-dren had access to computers at libraries

and community centers.60 Thus, librariesand CTCs are still far from realizing theirpotential to provide enriching access tocomputer technology for low-income chil-dren. To reach more children, we mustlook to schools.

Schools Must Play a Critical RoleIn the mid-1990s, the Clinton administra-tion enthusiastically embraced the con-gressional mandate to provide all ournations children with access to computersat school, launching the first national edu-cational technology plan, Getting AmericasStudents Ready for the 21st Century, in June199673 and spending billions of dollars toconnect children to computers and theInternet. The Education-rate (or E-rate)program mentioned earlier has been keyto this effort. Since its creation in 1996, theE-rate program has provided over $6 bil-lion to help connect schools and librariesto the Internet, with the major portion offunding going to public schools. As of2000, about 70,000 public schools wereparticipating in the program.69

Regardless of community incomelevel, nearly all public elementary and sec-ondary schools now have access to com-puters and the Internet. According to themost recent data from the NationalCenter for Education Statistics (NCES), asof 1999, 90% of public schools servingpredominantly low-income students hadaccess to the Internet, only slightly lessthan the 94% of schools serving predomi-nantly high-income students.74 However,having a computer does not necessarilymean it is being used, or used well. In theU.S. Department of Education report TheCondition of Education 2000, data from1998 showed disparities between schoolsreported access to computers and stu-dents use of computers.60,74 Althoughover 90% of schools reported having com-puters connected to the Internet, only68% of low-income students and 86% ofhigh-income students reported usingcomputers at school. These differencesmost likely reflect differences in the capa-bilities and location of the computersavailable to students.

As discussed in the article by Becker inthis journal issue, schools have often beensaddled with outdated, stand-alone com-



puters.75 Despite efforts to replace oldermachines, as of 1998, fewer than half ofschool computers were models intro-duced within the previous five years, andmany schools, especially those in low-income areas, could not be described aswell equipped, according to Becker. As of1999, NCES data revealed significant dif-ferences in the nature of Internet accessin poorer versus richer schools. For exam-ple, only 50% of the lowest-incomeschools had high-speed Internet access,compared with 72% of the highest-income schools.74

The location of computers in a schoolbuilding also can have an importantimpact on how they are used. Whether acomputer is located in a classroom, a com-puter lab, the library, or the principalsoffice makes a great deal of difference interms of a students opportunity for mean-ingful use. The 1999 NCES data againrevealed significant differences in poorerversus richer schools. Only 39% of theinstructional classrooms in lower-incomeschools had Internet access, with a ratio of16 students per computer. In contrast,some 74% of instructional classrooms inhigher-income classrooms were con-nected, with a ratio of 7 students per com-puter.74 If the bulk of well-connectedclassrooms are also concentrated inadvanced classes, as opposed to remedialclasses, or in subjects taken predomi-nantly by boys rather than girls, thenequity issues may exist within a school aswell.76

In addition, Beckers analysis of 1998data from a nationwide survey of teachersindicates that higher-income schoolsmore often used computers in more intel-lectually powerful ways to enhance learn-ing compared with lower-incomeschools.67 More specifically, higher-income students were more likely to usecomputers for sophisticated applicationssuch as written expression, making pre-sentations to an audience, and informa-tion analysis; in contrast, lower-incomestudents were more likely to use comput-ers for remediation of skills or masteringskills just taught.

Finally, some schools remain discon-nected entirely. A September 2000 report

from the U.S. Department of Educationabout progress made under the E-rateprogram found that although mostschools serving low-income students weretaking advantage of the program, the verypoorest schools were not applying for E-rate discounts as often as other schools.69To receive the E-rate discounts, schoolsmust complete an application and con-tribute 10% in matching funds, whichmay pose barriers for schools in especiallypoor areas. Because a major purpose ofthe E-rate program is to help provideaccess for schools and libraries in areas ofgreatest economic need, the Departmentis now looking for ways to assist the poor-est schools to overcome these barriers.

Thus, although most lower-incomeschools are gaining access to computertechnology in comparable numbers tohigher-income schools, the disparities instudents access to enriched learningopportunities with technology may beincreasing. In addition to acquiring com-puters and Internet access, lower-incomeschools must strive to obtain moreadvanced software and explore betterstrategies for integrating appropriate andeffective computer use with classroomlearning if they are to help bridge the gapin access to technology for their lessadvantaged students.

RECOMMENDATION

The U.S. Department of Educationshould assist the poorest schools in apply-ing for E-rate discounts and encourage allschools to offer a broad range of technol-ogy-related experiences to their students,preferably connected to the curriculum inways that have been shown to be appro-priate and effective.

Schools should also strive to play aninstrumental role in equalizing access totechnology and enhanced learningopportunities for children with disabili-ties. As discussed in the article by


Hasselbring and Williams Glaser,advances in computer technology haveopened up many new opportunities forchildren with disabilities to attend regularschools and learn alongside their nondis-abled peers. But for children with disabil-ities, the type of computer hardware andsoftware used can sometimes pose barri-ers. According to the World Institute onDisability, a number of relatively simplechoices to adopt universal design fea-tures could enhance access to theInternet for all children, with and withoutdisabilities.77 Suggested strategies includegetting high-speed connections, using atext-only option, using larger monitorsand font sizes, using headphones, andproviding communication tools such asword prediction software. Other helpfuldevices include a trackball (to replace themouse), touch screens, alternative key-boards, and voice input and output tech-nology. (See the article by Hasselbringand Williams Glaser for more detaileddescriptions of these devices.) A resourceguide published by the National SchoolBoards Association and the U.S.Department of Education providesinsights into applications of technology inthe classroom to assist students with dis-abilities.78

RECOMMENDATION

When acquiring new hardware andsoftware, schools should consider optionsthat incorporate universal design featuresto facilitate access to computers for all stu-dents, including those with special needs.

In sum, home access to computers andthe Internet varies widely by income, butthe gap appears to be narrowing. Withmarket forces driving down costs, andwith the support of a few public and pri-vate-sponsored initiatives, it is not unreal-istic to expect computer technology tohelp us move toward a more egalitariansociety in terms of access to informationand power to create content. Meanwhile,

libraries, community technology centers,and especially schools play an importantrole in providing low-income and specialneeds children with access to and experi-ences with computers that will help pre-pare them for life in the twenty-firstcentury.

The Potential for EnhancedLearningBeyond teaching computer skills, therehas been a push to use technology in theclassroom to enhance instruction. Therationale for increased federal support forcomputers in schools was, first and fore-most, to improve learning and help meetthe education goals as laid out in theGoals 2000: Educate America Act of1994.79 Yet the body of research linkinguse of computers to improved learningwasand continues to beinadequate inmany areas, with many questions aboutthe effectiveness of technology across var-ious age groups and subject areas stillunanswered.80 While studies confirm thatsome models of technology-supportedpractices can, indeed, promote childrenslearning under some circumstances, theresearch to date does not support broadclaims to effectiveness.81

Educators have used computers aslearning tools in Americas elementaryand secondary schools for over 30 years.82The 1960s brought computer-assistedinstruction to schools, providing individu-alized drill and practice to reinforce basicskills. With the development andincreased availability of lower-cost per-sonal computers, school use of technol-ogy broadened in the early 1980s toinclude applications such as word pro-cessing, spreadsheets, and distance learn-ing via two-way audio and video. In the1990s, even more sophisticated applica-tions, including multimedia educationalsoftware and the communication featuresof the Internet, began to be used to enrichcurricula across the range of academicsubjects.

To date, however, technology has notbeen embraced as a tool to transform howand what children learn in the typicalclassroom. Teacher survey data indicatethat in 1998, most students were exposed



to a broad range of computer applicationsat some point during the school year, butsuch exposure was generally not linked tocurricula in core academic classes, espe-cially in schools serving predominantlylow-income students. Instead, for themost part, students used computers pri-marily in nonacademic courses. As notedby a U.S. Department of Education offi-cial at a recent conference, technologyhas swept the nation in almost everysector except education.83 To understandthe reasons for the slow integration ofmore sophisticated and powerful uses oftechnology into the curricula in mostclassrooms, it is helpful to understand thelarger debate surrounding elementaryand secondary education goals in thiscountry.

The Larger Debate on EducationReformComputers are being thrust into analready highly charged, contentious arenaof competing ideas about what and how toteach our nations children. In simplifiedterms, at one end of the spectrum arethose who place a heavy emphasis on areturn to basicsthat is, the fundamen-tals of reading, writing, and arithmetic.This approach is embodied in many stateand local responses to the call for stan-dards in the Goals 2000: Educate AmericaAct and other federal legislation.84 Its sup-porters maintain that a stronger com-mand of the basics is needed to ensure acompetitive workforce in the future. Atthe other end of the spectrum are thosewho place greater emphasis on makingsure all students learn the higher-orderskills of problem solving, communicatingeffectively, analyzing information, anddesigning solutions. Advocates of thisapproach believe that higher-order skillscan be acquired alongside basic skills andwill prove as important as the basics inensuring that our nation does not lose itscompetitive edge in the marketplace.35,85

Overlaying these different approachesto what students should be taught are dif-ferent methods of how students should betaught. The traditional transmissionapproach to learning relies primarily onbooks and lectures to impart knowledge,while students are mostly passive,expected to memorize and recite what

they have learned.35 In contrast, a con-structivist approach to learning focusesmore on cultivating student interestthrough critical thinking and real-worldapplications and often involves problemsolving in small groups. This methodexpects students to actively constructknowledge through direct experience,interpretation, and structured interactionwith peers and teachers.

Most teachers, of course, teach a com-bination of basic and higher-order skillsthrough a variety of methods rangingfrom more transmission oriented to moreconstructivist. The emergence of what hasbeen termed high-stakes testing, how-ever, has thrust the extremes into thelimelight. Over the last few years, anincreasing number of states and localschool districts have adopted standard-ized tests, with results often linked tohigh-stakes decisions about studentadvancement and graduation, teacher payand promotion, and funding and controlof individual schools.86 As a result, teach-ers are increasingly concerned with link-ing classroom curricula to the content ofsuch testsa practice commonly referredto as teaching to the test. Because thesetests typically focus on basic skills, sup-porters of higher-order thinking skills fearthat standardized tests are leading to anarrowing of curricula. Some go even far-ther, cautioning that if higher-orderthinking skills are not emphasized, theentire public education system willbecome obsolete because it is preparingchildren for a world that no longer exits.87

How computers are used or not usedin the classroom must be seen within thecontext of this larger debate about educa-tion in the twenty-first century and theincreasing emphasis on standardizedtests. Most teachers, parents, and policy-makers agree that children should learn,in age-appropriate ways, how to use com-puters with a broad array of applications,but there is much less agreement aboutthe extent to which teachers should inte-grate computers into classroom curricula.Ones stance on the larger issues sur-rounding education reform influencesones view of all other factors contributingto decisions about computer use in theclassroom, such as evidence of effective-



ness, teacher training, and other organi-zational supports.

Limited Research on EffectiveApplicationsAs tools, computers can be used in waysthat serve any combination of teachingapproaches. For example, to reinforcebasic skills, a more traditional approachmay be to use a drill and practice com-puter application, while a more construc-tivist approach might use a computerizedtutorial program that involves more inter-action and feedback. To teach higher-order skills, a more traditional approachmight use the computer for distancelearning, tapping into an online presen-tation about problem solving in a com-munity far away. In contrast, a moreconstructivist approach might involve anexchange of ideas via the Internetbetween students from two different com-munities to work toward a solutiontogether. Alternatively, one could chooseto teach basic or higher-order skills with-out any computers at all.

A key factor affecting teachers use ornonuse of technology is their degree ofconfidence that available software orInternet content can be effective inenhancing the curriculum, consistentwith their teaching philosophy. However,current research is generally insufficientto give teachers the guidance they needabout what application might work best intheir classroom and how to use the appli-cation effectively to ensure positiveresults.

Indeed, existing research suggests thatnot all uses of the computer are effective,or effective in the same ways, and studiesoften produce mixed results, dependingon the applications and outcomes mea-sured. In general, the strongest evidenceof positive effects tends to be for con-structivist applications designed to teachhigher-order thinking skills, but onlywhen success is measured by depth ofunderstanding rather than improvementsin basic skills. For example, one of the fewlarge-scale, nationwide studies on theeffectiveness of educational technologyfound that more sophisticated applica-tions increased fourth- and eighth-gradestudents mathematical understanding,

while software involving repetitive skillpractice apparently decreased under-standing.88 However, more traditionaldrill and practice applications havebeen found to be more effective atimproving performance on basic skillstests. A meta-analysis of over 500 researchstudies of computer-based instructionfound that computer tutoring applica-tions improved students scores onachievement tests, whereas other, moresophisticated applications had only mini-mal effects on such tests.89

In the article by Roschelle and col-leagues in this journal issue, the authorsmaintain that positive results from com-puter use are most likely to be achievedwhen the applications reinforce one ormore of the four fundamental character-istics of learning that underpin theconstructivist approach: (1) activeengagement, (2) participation in groups,(3) frequent interaction and feedback,and (4) connections to real-world con-texts. According to learning research, aswell as the practical experience of manyteachers, such an approach is much bettermatched to how children learn than thetransmission approach. When com-puter-based technology integrates con-structivist principles into the learningprocess, the authors argue it can be aneffective tool in helping students learnhigher-order skills involving creative orcritical thinking about complex ideas.

For example, Roschelle and colleaguesdescribe a computer-based application,Microcomputer-Based Laboratory,which allows the instantaneous graphingof data as they are gathered. Use of thissoftware has been found to produce sig-nificant gains in middle school studentsability to interpret and use graphs.90Another example cited is ThinkerTools, asimulation program that has been shownto improve students learning by repre-senting complex subject matterin thiscase, velocity and accelerationthroughvisualization. This application enabledmiddle school students to grasp complexscientific concepts several grade levelsbefore they are usually taught.91

Other promising applications cited bythese and other authors include com-



puter programming using child-friendlylanguages such as Logo, which has beenshown to increase problem-solving abili-ties and comprehension; desktop publish-ing and multimedia software that enablesstudents to take pride in creating elabo-rate, professional-looking presentations;and the communication features of theInternet, which foster students criticalthinking skills through collaborative pro-jects with others in the classroom oraround the world.35,56 Because not all stu-dents respond in the same way to specificteaching approaches, the various com-puter applicationswhich tend to incor-porate verbal as well as nonverbal forms ofteachingare helpful in providing alter-native ways to learn. As noted in the arti-cle by Hasselbring and Williams Glaser,when such applications are incorporatedinto classroom instruction, they can beespecially helpful to students with mildlearning disorders, who account for about1 out of every 10 students in elementaryand secondary classrooms across thecountry.92,93

Despite such examples, very littleresearch exists on the effectiveness ofvarious computer applications and tech-nology-supported practices in subjectsother than math and science, or foryounger students in early elementaryschool or preschool. In contrast to theburgeoning number of products on themarket, there has been very littleresearch or product screening andassessment to help teachers identifywhich applications may be of high qual-ity and aligned with their teaching objec-tives.94 In August 1998, the U.S.Department of Education established anexpert panel on educational technologyto identify promising and exemplaryeducational technology programs basedon quality, significance, replicability, andevidence of success. The panel releasedits first list of model educational tech-nology programs in September 2000,citing only seven promising programsand two exemplary programs, Challenge2000 Multimedia Project in Californiaand Generation www.Y in Washington.95The low number of programs cited wasdue, in part, to the lack of research oneffectiveness and documentation ofsuccess.

As pointed out in the commentary byDede, compared with other sectors ofsociety, relatively little money is spent onresearch in education, and as a result,many opportunities for improvement ineducation are unrealized. Although ournation has allocated a substantial amountof money to creating a technology infra-structure for schools, relatively little fund-ing has gone into assessing the strengthsand limitations of learning technologies.More systematic, in-depth research on theeffectiveness of learning technology pro-grams and practices is needed.

RECOMMENDATION

More public and private research dol-lars should be allocated to assessing theeffectiveness of technology-supportedpractices in the classroom across varioussubjects and grade levels and to dissemi-nating the results to state and local educa-tion agencies and teachers.

The education sector is just on thethreshold of acquiring computers in mas-sive numbers, however, so it should not besurprising if it takes some time for ele-mentary and secondary schools through-out the country to develop strategies forintegrating technology into classroominstruction. Just as it has taken many yearsfor technology to transform industryatransformation still under wayit willlikely take many years to achieve a similarshift in education practice. There may bemany ways for teachers to use technologyto enhance learning in the classroom,across many subject areas and gradelevels, but this has yet to be demonstrated.In the meantime, while more definitiveresearch is under way, we should encour-age teachers to experiment and exchangeideas and experiences about promisingtechnology-supported practices. To helpfacilitate such an exchange, the U.S.Department of Educations Web sitecould list teacher-recommended technol-ogy-supported programs and practices,



organized by subject area, objectives, andgrade level, with links to other sites withmore information.

More Teacher Training andDevelopment Is NeededResearch confirms what parents haveknown for years: the most critical factor inthe quality of a childs learning experi-enceswith computers and otherwiseisthe quality of a childs teacher.96 Strategiesthat focus on teachers skills and abilitiesmay be what are most needed to ensurethe educational success of our nationschildren. As Healy points out in her com-mentary in this journal issue, disadvan-taged students without computers butwith excellent teachers and curricula arefar better off than children who spendtime using computers for rote activitieswithout substantive, interpersonal learn-ing experiences.

To help teachers become savvy com-puter usersknowing when to use com-puters and when not to, and knowingwhat technology-supported practicesmight be appropriatethey need train-ing. Recognizing the important role ofteachers, the Clinton administration set asthe first goal in its 1996 national educa-tional technology plan that all teachersin the nation will have the training andsupport they need to help students learnusing computers and the informationsuperhighway.97 U.S. Department ofEducation data from 1998 indicate that78% of teachers nationwide participatedin training during the previous year onintegrating educational technology in thegrade or subject they teach,60 and subse-quently they felt better prepared to usetechnology in their classroom lessons.80,98Yet in another survey, most teachers saidthey still lacked the expertise to use themore sophisticated computer-based appli-cations.99

For teachers to make informed deci-sions about using technology to enhancestudent learning, they must be providedwith training so that they know whichsoftware applications and technology-supported practices are available, whichmight be appropriate for their classes,and how they can be integrated effec-tively into the curriculum. State and local

education agencies should ensure that allteachers receive preservice and/or in-service training on how to integratetechnology effectively into curricula,including the opportunity to observemodels of effective technology-supportedpractices.

One of the best ways for teachers todevelop effective strategies for integrat-ing technology into curricula is throughnetworking and collaborating with otherteachers.67 Yet teachers often have diffi-culty finding time to engage in such net-working, which often does not counttoward requirements for professionaldevelopment. To encourage and rewardteachers for time spent networking andcollaborating with other teachers toenhance classroom learning using com-puters, federal, state, and local educationagencies could allow such time to counttoward professional developmentrequirements for educational technologyfunds.

Organizational and StructuralSupports Are Also NeededFinally, once appropriate technology-supported practices have been identi-fied, organizational and structuralsupports are needed to promote theireffective use. According to a 1999 reportfrom the U.S. Department of Education,teachers cite having an insufficientnumber of computers as the biggest bar-rier to effective use.100 The typicalmiddle school or high school through-out this country places nearly one-halfof its computers in shared computerlabs, while most academic classroomshave only one or two computers.67Beckers analysis of nationwide surveydata gathered from teachers in 1998found that only 3% of all secondary aca-demic classrooms had both an Internetconnection and four or more comput-ersimportant ingredients for success-ful integration with the curriculum. Thedata also showed that Internet accesswas twice as likely to be used frequentlyif classrooms had at least four computerswith online connections than if they hadonly a single Internet-connected com-puter. To support more integrated useof technology with academic curricula,schools may need to redistribute com-



puters out of labs and into classrooms.Also, teachers, like other professionals,need technical support to maintain thehardware and troubleshoot glitches withsoftware. A greater proportion of educa-tional technology funds should bedevoted to providing such ongoing tech-nical support.

In addition, to the extent that the mostappropriate and promising technology-supported practices tend to be those thatfacilitate the acquisition of higher-orderthinking skills, the mismatch with thefocus of high-stakes student achieve-ment tests on basics can be a disincentivefor incorporating technology into the cur-riculum. In a national survey on teachersuse of digital content (including softwareand Web sites), teachers noted the failureof content to link with state and districtstudent achievement tests as a major con-cern.101 If age-appropriate higher-orderthinking skills are deemed important, itwould be helpful to include some mea-sures reflecting these skills on state andlocal standardized tests. Then teachingto the test might include more construc-tivist approaches with technology to pro-mote students deeper understandingof complex concepts.102 The U.S.Department of Education could assist inthis process by sponsoring the develop-ment of examples of items that assess age-appropriate higher-order thinking skillsfor possible inclusion on district- andstate-mandated tests.

In sum, beyond a handful of examples,the research on use of educational tech-nology is inadequate to support sweepingclaims of effectiveness. We must ask, asHealy does in her commentary, whatunique role can computers play in educa-tion? Technology should be used forteaching opportunities not otherwise pos-sible, rather than for replacing traditionalapproaches regardless of whether suchuse adds value. Much more experimenta-tion and research are needed to identifythose opportunities across various gradelevels and subject areas. First, decisionsmust be made about what skills we wantour nations children to learn; then wemust determine if technology-supportedpractices can effectively enhance theteaching of those skills.

ConclusionsComputer technology is rapidly trans-forming society. Although the task mayseem daunting, we can take several stepsto help ensure that children use comput-ers in ways that improve their lives nowand in the future.

First, we can ensure that childrenacquire the necessary skills to navigate thedigital world effectively and responsibly.Parents, teachers, and other adults whowork with children can teach children tomake good choices about the time theyspend with computers, to be savvy digitalconsumers, and to seek out software andonline content that educates and inspires,not merely entertains. With our guidanceand enthusiasm, children can use thecomputer to learn about other peopleand parts of the world, for example, aswell as to play video games. If use ofhigher-quality content increases, industrycan be challenged more effectively tomeet the demand.

Second, we can ensure that childrenhave opportunities to use computer tech-nology more actively to create, to design,to invent, and to collaborate with childrenin other classrooms and communities.These are types of activities that empowerchildren to play active roles in the emerg-ing digital world, not merely to navigatethrough it. With the assistance of highlytrained mentors, children can learn to usecomputers to create finger paintings, orto design and build bird feeders, forexample, as well as to surf the Web for thelyrics of hit songs.

Third, we can help reduce disparitiesbetween rich and poor by working tonarrow the gap in computer accessbetween children who live in low-incomeneighborhoods compared with those inhigh-income neighborhoods. Initiativesthat help low-income families to affordhome computers and that support tech-nology programs in public libraries andcommunity centers can play an importantpart in equalizing access. As the primaryaccess point for most low-income chil-dren, however, schools must play the criti-cal role. To promote equality of digitalopportunity, we can ensure that schoolsin low-income neighborhoods are well



equipped with up-to-date hardware, high-quality software, and well-trained teachersso that children learn the skills they willneed to live and work in the twenty-firstcentury.

Finally, to harness the potential ofcomputer technology to enhance chil-drens learning, we can explore ways touse technology effectively in the class-room, ways that add value to traditionalcurricula and reach students who fail torespond to traditional approaches.Although computers may not be thepanacea envisioned by some, certain usesof technology have been demonstrated tobenefit students by making learningmore interesting and engaging and byproviding new approaches to learningcomplex concepts and critical thinking.

We should identify the technology-supported practices that show the mostpromise for enhancing learning and sup-port efforts to integrate these practicesinto the classroom.

Computer technology is only a toolwhether it serves to improve childrenslives depends on how it is used. By takingthese steps today, we can help empowerall children to use the tool effectively,responsibly, and creatively to shape thedigital world of tomorrow.

Margie K. Shields, M.P.A.Richard E. Behrman, M.D.

Special thanks to Barbara Means and to EliseCappella for their insightful comments and sup-port throughout the development of this analysis.


1. National Center for Education Statistics. Internet access in public schools and classrooms:199499. Stats in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improvement, February 2000.

2. Woodward, E.H. IV, and Gridina, N. Media in the home 2000: The fifth annual survey of parentsand children. Philadelphia: Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania,2000, p. 11.

3. Committee on Information Technology Literacy and Computer Science andTelecommunications Board, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, andApplications, National Research Council. Being fluent with information technology.Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999, pp. 614.

4. Nie, N.H., and Erbring, L. Internet and society: A preliminary report. Stanford, CA: StanfordInstitute for the Quantitative Study of Society, February 17, 2000.

5. Internal Revenue Service. Projections of returns to be filed in calendar years 20002006,Table 1. In Statistics of Income Bulletin, Winter 1999/2000, IRS Publication 1136, rev.February 2000.

6. Ain, S. In brief: Election.com calls test in Arizona a success. Sunday Long Island Weekly Desk.March 19, 2000; see also Ladd, D. Casting your vote on the Internet: Yea or nay. InteractiveWeek from ZDWire. July 3, 2000.

7. Trotter, A. Question of effectiveness. Education Week: Technology counts 98, October 8, 1998,18:69.

8. National School Boards Foundation. Safe and smart: Research and guidelines for childrens useof the Internet. Alexandria, VA: NSBF, March 28, 2000.

9. Turow, J. The Internet and the family: The view from parents, the view from the press. Philadelphia:Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania, May 1999, pp. 14, 25.

10. Roberts, D.F., Foehr, U.G., Rideout, V.J., and Brodie, M. Kids and media @ the new millen-nium. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 1999.

11. National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Falling through the Net:Defining the digital divide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, July 1999.


12. Chaney, H. The U.S. digital divide is not even a virtual reality. Bridge News. March 12,2000.

13. Coley, R.J., Cradler, J. and Engel, P.E. Computers and classrooms: The status of technology inU.S. schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Center, 1996, p. 8; and Public Law 103382, Improving Americas Schools of 1994. October 20, 1994,Title III, Technology for Education, Part A, Technology for Education of All Students,Sections 3111 and 3112.

14. See, for example, Benson, P.L. All kids are our kids: What communities must do to raise caringand responsible children and adolescents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997, pp. 3233;Steinhauser, P.D. The primary needs of children: A blueprint for effective health promotion at thecommunity level. Working paper for the Promotion/Prevention Task Force, Sparrow LakeAlliance, prepared October 1995; see also Pipher, M. The shelter of each other: Rebuilding ourfamilies. New York: Grosset/Putnam Books, 1996.

15. American Academy of Pediatrics. Fitness, activity, and sports participation in the preschoolchild. Pediatrics (December 1992) 90:100204.

16. American Academy of Pediatrics. Media education. Pediatrics (August 1999)104:34143.

17. See note no. 2, Woodward and Gridina, p. 19.

18. Special analyses from survey database described in Penuel, B., Golan, S., Means, B., et al.Silicon Valley Challenge 2000: Year 4 report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 2000.

19. For example, a survey conducted by America Online in February 1997 found that amongthe 290 respondents, 20% of boys ages 6 to 19 reported using the Internet 29 hours ormore per week.

20. See the article by Subrahmanyam and colleagues in this journal issue for further discus-sion of this topic.


22. Alliance for Childhood. Fools gold: A critical look at children and computers. College Park, MD:Alliance for Childhood, September 12, 2000.

23. See, for example, Gortmaker, S.L., Must, A., Sobol, A.M., et al. Television viewing as acause of increasing obesity among children in the United States, 19861990. Archives ofPediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (April 1996) 150:35662.

24. Mendels, P. School computers may harm posture. New York Times. January 17, 1999, at 16;see also Harris, C., and Straker, L. Survey of physical ergonomics issues associated withschool childrens use of laptop computers. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics(2000) 26:33746; Palmer, S. Does computer use put childrens vision at risk? Journal ofResearch and Development in Education (Winter 1993) 26:5965.

25. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Women and ergonomics. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, March 2000.

26. Griffiths, M.D. Friendship and social development in children and adolescents:The impact of electronic technology. Educational and Child Psychology (1997)14:2537.

27. Colwell, J., Grady, C., Rhaiti, S. Computer games, self esteem, and gratification ofneeds in adolescents. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology (1995)5:195206.




29. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., et al. Internet paradox: A social technology thatreduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist (1998)53:101731.

30. See note no. 16, AAP. The Academy had earlier advised that television viewing should belimited to no more than one to two hours per day. See American Academy of Pediatrics.Children, adolescents, and television. Pediatrics (October 1995) 96:78687.

31. Based on original analysis of Census data included in the article by Becker in this journalissue.

32. eCME News. Electronic Newsletter of the CME. September 8, 2000. Available online athttp://www.cme.org/publications/ecme/vol1_no1.html.

33. Funk, J. Reevaluating the impact of video games. Clinical Pediatrics (1993) 2:8689.

34. Gallup Organization, in conjunction with CNN, USA Today, and the National ScienceFoundation. U.S. teens and technology. 1997. Some gender disparities continue to exist, how-ever. See National Center for Education Statistics. Trends in educational equity of girls andwomen. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Researchand Improvement, March 2000; see also American Association of University Women. Tech-savvy: Educating girls in the new computer age. Washington, DC: AAUW, 2000.

35. See the article by Roschelle and colleagues in this journal issue.

36. Zillmann, D., and Weaver, J. Psychoticism in the effect of prolonged exposure to gratu-itous media violence on the acceptance of violence as a preferred means of conflict resolu-tion. Personality and Individual Differences (May 1997) 22:61327; see also Zillman, D., andWeaver, J. Effects of prolonged exposure to gratuitous media violence on provoked andunprovoked hostile behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology (1999) 29:14565.

37. Fling, S., Smith, L., Rodriguez, T., et al. Videogames, aggression, and self-esteem: A survey.Social Behavior and Personality (1992) 20:3945.

38. Oldberg, C. Children and violent video games: A warning. New York Times. December 15,1998, at A16.

39. Dietz, T.L. An examination of violence and gender role portrayals in video games:Implications for gender socialization and aggressive behavior. Sex Roles (1998) 38:42542.

40. Federal Trade Commission. Marketing violent entertainment to children: A review of self-regula-tion and industry practices in the motion picture, music recording and electronic game industries.Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission, September 2000.

41. Blanton, W.E., Moorman, G.B., Hayes, B.A., et al. Effects of participation in the FifthDimension on far transfer. Boone, NC: Laboratory on Technology and Learning,Appalachian State University, College of Education, May 30, 2000.

42. See Web site at http://www.pacificnews.org/yo.

43. See Web site at http://www.indiana.edu/~eric_rec/fl/pcto/menu.html.

44. See Web site at http://www.codetalk.fed.us/planet/planet.html.

45. The big picture demographics: U.S. teens increase online shopping. Marketers eRetailReport. Internet.com. September 22, 1999.

46. Murray, J.P., Television and youth: 25 years of research and controversy. Boys Town, NE: The BoysTown Center for the Study of Youth Development, 1980, pp. 1124.

47. Wartella, E., and Reeves, B. Historical trends in research on children and the media:19001960. Journal of Communication (Spring 1985) 35:12223.



48. See the article by Becker in this jou

10 02 analysis

Documents