There has been much debate in recent years over the integration of technology into

schools. Many, particularly those not in the academic profession, view technology as a silver
bullet that can quickly cure what ails a failing educational system in the most powerful nation on
earth. Others, many of them the adults in classrooms around the country, are wary of the influx
of technology in to academia, viewing it as a distraction or hindrance to the real work of
teaching. The truth, as usually happens, lies somewhere in the middle, somewhere between
panacea and detriment. Overwhelmingly, though, evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, is
mounting in regards to the efficacy of, and need for, technology in our classrooms.
One of the earliest adoptions of technology in education has taken place in the area of
special needs and learning challenged students. Technology has long been considered an
effective aid for helping students with clinical diagnoses perform on a more equal footing with
their fully abled peers, though much of the supportive evidence has been anecdotal. Parette and
Stoner (2008), however, in examining assistive technology use among early childhood education
professionals, identified three immediate benefits to its use including changes in childrens (a)
attending behaviors, (b) understanding of and compliance with rules of appropriate behavior, and
(c) abilities to communicate in the classroom setting. (p. 4)
Certainly some would deride Parette and Stoners study, as well as the entire
conversation around Assistive Technologies, as statistically insignificant in the greater question
of technology integration in education owing to the very small population affected by the
integration. Yet it is critical to view the information from a more global perspective. Certainly
attending behaviors, understanding of and compliance with rules of appropriate behavior,
and abilities to communicate in the classroom setting are all areas of development critical to
not just a select few students, but to every student and every communal body of learners.

One cannot discount clinical evidence supporting the universal improvement of these
behaviors in any population. In fact, these results speak to the efficacy of appropriately applied
technologies to the learning process. This, in turn, leads directly to the second issue raised by this
information, namely, that this application of technology was not undertaken by an advanced
population of learners, but rather with a population of students who traditionally perform well
below the standard of their age-group. If such students are able to overcome challenges and
learning differences to operate at an academic level that more accurately reflects their intellectual
capacities rather than their physical disabilities then similar corollaries can be made in regards to
the application of appropriate technologies to more normative student populations.
Through all of this, one must keep in mind that the goal of technology integration into
education is not necessarily for the advancement of the intellectual capacities of the student, but
rather is the advancement of the abilities of educators to communicate clearly and effectively
with students. Frequently this means meeting students where they are and assisting them to more
thoroughly synthesize information or more accurately express their understanding. If technology
can assist special needs students to do so, then it seems rational that it should be able to assist
normative students, as well.
In direct contrast to the integration of assistive technologies in educational settings lies
one of the most unexpected, and perhaps least accepted, areas of technology integration into
education, and area that educators themselves are most resistant to; gaming, specifically learning
through playing video games.
Long reviled by teachers and parents alike as having no value whatsoever, let alone
educational significance, there is a substantial body of evidence backing the use of video games
in the classroom. Many of the earliest publicized studies around the benefits of gaming showed

causal connections between video game play and eye-hand coordination and left the matter there.
For some this was treated as vindication that games were not entirely without merit. For the
majority, however, the lack of clear identification of significance to the playing of games
relegated them to the time-waster category and there the matter has remained, regardless of the
numerous studies completed over the past twenty years demonstrating the multiple levels of
efficacy gaming displays as an educational tool.
Analytical data from these studies is turning this long held theory about gaming on its
heads by conclusively demonstrating that perception, deduction, and parallel and simultaneous
processing are all improved through gameplay, as well as spatiality, visual perspective and
selective attention to stimuli, as well as the fact that video games can be instrumental in the
emotional and intellectual development of adolescents. (Aguilera and Mendiz 2003)
In addition, the body of evidence clearly demonstrates that video game players tend to
have higher intellectual levels than non-players belonging to the same peer group and children
who play video games obtain better results than non-players in critical thinking, strategy
development, and problem- solving tests. (Aguilera and Mendiz 2003) Furthermore, in games
specifically created to contain content information, although students may only play for short
periods of time, they successfully retain knowledge with no significant differences between
immediate and delayed postgame test scores. (Moshirnia and Israel 2010) Students also report
increased motivation to learn when using video games. (Moshirnia and Israel 2010)
As tempting as it may be, one cannot simply brush aside proven educational tools that
also engage and motivate students. As Aguilera and Mendiz (2003) point out, much to the
chagrin of many parents and teachers, research has yet to prove that video games are actually
intellectually harmful.

Certainly, we cannot simply give every child with a learning challenge an iPad2, or
install a mainframe of Xbox360s in a classroom and call it education. It is crucial to recognize
the role of teacher as paramount in guiding the development of students higher-order
thinking skills during learning activities involving and technology tools. (Cradler 2002)
In addition, any inclusion of technology in education must include careful work to
identify appropriate technologies to the task at hand. Indeed a foundation must be laid to educate
all adults in involved in regards to the potential pitfalls of technology infatuation. Research
reveals that when computer technologies are designed in line with sound learning theory and
pedagogy, the implementation of technology in educational settings substantially improve
student learning. (Schacter and Fagnanos 1999) Furthermore, students in technology rich
environments experienced positive effects on achievement in all major subject areas (Schacter
and Fagnano 1999 p. 337) and students in technology rich environments showed increased
achievement in preschool through higher education, and their attitudes toward learning improved
consistently when computers were used for instruction. (Schacter and Fagnano 1999 p. 337)
Yet it is not simply careful consideration when selecting technology for implementation
into the classroom, but so too must the entire curriculum be reconsidered. The greatest gains
are made when curriculum is redesigned to take advantage of appropriate technology,
rather than through trying to fit existent technology to a rigid curriculum. (Crandler 2002)
In bringing technology into the classroom, learning objectives and standards of assessment
must be explicitly identified before the inclusion of the technology, as the technology itself
will dramatically affect both the learning goals and the way in which one is able to assess
for achievement of those goals. (Crandler 2002) To simply plug technology into a

curriculum that is not designed or ready for it will not only prove to be of no benefit, it will
prove to be detrimental.
All of the research done on the integration of technology into education, it is critical to
note, are not simply the result of random assignations of technology. Instead, they are the result
of carefully crafted integrations between technology and sound pedagogy. The implementation
must be based on purposely created curriculum designed for a marriage with purposely
supportive technology. And therein lies the rub, the point of conflict between those who want to
advance the use of technology in the classroom with engines at full steam ahead, and those who
are already in the classroom and are wary of the changes technology integration portends. At the
crux of this matter lies the fact that the one side (the non-educators) must recognize the
professional basis on which educators are making choices about best practices for teaching,
while at the same time the other side (those already in the classroom) must recognize that our
society as a whole is currently undergoing a monumental shift in how we think, operate, and
communicate, and as part of the society, education must also shift. To do this effectively and
correctly requires a marriage of both of these two seemingly diametrically opposed sides; those
that understand the capabilities of what technology can do for education and those who
understand how to educate children.