Educational Technology – It’s Not About the “What”

In this 2016 column, Howard Pitler argues that teachers should decide what students are meant to learn before choosing a technology, using 3D printing and the Sphero BB-8 robot as examples. An updated section below the column adds the 2024 National Educational Technology Plan, the ISTE standards for educators and recent evidence on devices in class.

In the 2009 animated movie “UP” by Pixar, the dogs in the movie are easily distracted by the presence of squirrels. Right in the middle of the action, while the dogs are keenly focused on a task or objective, we hear the word “squirrel”, the action freezes, and the dogs all look in the direction of the squirrel. Technology is sometimes the “squirrel” in education.

I believe technology has the potential to dramatically improve the learning experience for students. All too often that potential isn’t been reached. Why is that? Here is one scenario. An app or product hits the market and teachers immediately ask, “how can I use this with my class?” 3D printing is a good example. The price point is now reasonable for many schools to purchase 3D printers and I am seeing more and more media centers and classrooms equipped with 3D printers. I also see students making toy dinosaurs and jewelry.

What I don’t often see is the “why.” Yes, 3D printing is cool and kids like creating things, but what is the educational value. What are students suppose to be learning when they are creating these cute things? Is this about coding? Maybe this is part of math? Educators need to use technology intentionally to enhance learning and students should be able to tell you what they are learning.

Here is a different example. Star Wars: The Force Awakens premieres in theaters and BB-8™ is an immediate star. BB-8 is also an amazing app-powered droid made by Sphero based in Boulder, CO. Many teachers rush to get their hands on BB-8 or Sphero’s other very cool products, SPRK and Ollie.

Here is the difference -There are quite a few learning activities teachers can download right from the Sphero website – good ones too. The teacher guide for each lesson identifies the Common Core standards addressed.

The student guides and worksheets for each learning activity guide the learner through the process. Teachers who are intentional about technology use the droid in the same way they use other good educational and technology tools. They use their new BB-8 to help teach specific identified math, physics, or computer science skills. Other teachers use the new technology because it’s really cool. They see a new technology and hear “squirrel.”

I do think technology has the potential to change the way teachers teach and students learn, but it requires educators to be intentional in their planning. Before teachers address the technology to use they have to first determine what they are trying to teach, when is the best time to use the tools available, and why this is the best tool. 

Keeping the eye focused on the real targets rather than the squirrel reduces teachers’ frustration with technology.

Image credits: Wikipedia

Technology integration in the classroom: what policy and research say in 2026

Technology integration in the classroom means choosing a digital tool because it serves a specific learning goal, after the goal has been set. Howard Pitler makes that case in the column above, written in 2016, when 3D printers and app-controlled robots were arriving in classrooms faster than plans for using them. The purpose of educational technology, in Pitler’s account, is to help students learn something identified in advance, and students should be able to say what that something is. National guidance and research since then have added detail to that idea and some cautions about devices in class.

What the standards for educators ask teachers to do

The ISTE Standards for Educators, which describe what teachers should be able to do with technology, list seven roles: learner, leader, citizen, collaborator, designer, facilitator and analyst. Two bear directly on Pitler’s argument. The designer role is described as creating learner-driven activities that use technology to accommodate learner variability, and the analyst role as using data to drive instruction and help students reach their learning goals. Pitler’s three questions for teachers, which are what they are trying to teach, when the tools should be used and why a given tool is the best one, are a short version of the designer role. The Sphero example in the column shows the pattern at work, since the teacher guides for those lessons identify the Common Core standards they address.

The federal view: three divides

The U.S. Department of Education published the 2024 National Educational Technology Plan on January 22, 2024. As summarized by the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society, it names three divides. The digital use divide concerns whether students use technology to explore, create and critically analyze content. The digital design divide concerns whether educators have the professional learning to design technology-enabled learning experiences. The digital access divide concerns connectivity, devices and digital content, including accessibility and digital safety. Pitler’s question about what students are learning while they print toy dinosaurs sits within the first of these, and the advice that teachers plan before choosing a tool sits within the second. A school can buy devices and close the access divide without touching the other two.

What international research says about conditions for success

UNESCO’s 2023 Global Education Monitoring Report on technology in education, summarized by the UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education, notes that views on technology are sharply divided and that many proposed solutions may be detrimental. It names three conditions that must be met for technology to reach its potential: access to technology, governance and regulation, and teacher preparation. That list matches Pitler’s emphasis on the teacher’s planning as the deciding factor.

Device distraction is a concrete example of why governance matters. In the 2022 results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), as Education Week reported in December 2023, 65 percent of students across OECD countries said their own use of digital devices distracted them in at least some math lessons, and 59 percent said other students’ device use did. Students who were distracted by other students’ devices scored 15 points lower in math than students who said this never or almost never happened. In the United States, about 54 percent reported distraction from other students’ devices. PISA is a survey and cannot show that devices cause lower scores, but it supports having clear rules about when devices are in use.

Questions to ask before choosing a tool

Pitler’s column and the sources above suggest a short set of decisions for a teacher or a school leader:

1. What should students know or be able to do afterward? Write that down before looking at the tool.
2. Is this the best tool for that goal, and when in the unit would it help? Sometimes a non-digital method is the better fit.
3. What will students do with the tool: create, analyze or build something, or complete a task passively? The 2024 plan’s use divide asks this question.
4. Have teachers had time and support to plan with it? The design divide treats that time as part of the cost.
5. What rules cover device use in the room, so that the tool helps the lesson instead of competing with it?
6. Can a student explain what the activity was for? Pitler treats this as the test.

Technology can change how teachers teach and students learn, as Pitler says. The research since 2016 is consistent with the point in the column that results depend on planning around the learning goal, whatever new device arrives next.

More on EdTech