Running head: HUMAN FACTORS IN THE CLASSROOM 1

Focusing on the Human Factors in the Classroom

Kirsten Brandler
Loyola University Maryland
HUMAN FACTORS IN THE CLASSROOM 2

As technology becomes increasingly prevalent and powerful in our society, new

technology initiatives are implemented more frequently in schools. New technologies are often

lauded as the key to increased student engagement and achievement and are rolled out at the

district level without full consideration being given to the needs of students and teachers in

individual classrooms. The implementation of technology frequently overlooks the essential

factors that must already be in place in a classroom in order for the technology to be effective:

the people and their intentions and needs. All technology, no matter how large or powerful, is

both created and used by people, and an educational technology initiative can only benefit

students if the human factors within the classroom the students, the teacher, and the student-

teacher relationship are the main consideration in developing curriculum and selecting

appropriate technological tools to advance the educational goals. Additionally, technological

tools in the classroom should not be used simply for the purpose of using technology; rather,

technology should only be used when using technology serves the learning goal more effectively

than using a non-technological approach.

Lei (2010) explored the importance of quality over quantity in the use of technology in

the classroom. This study involved students and teachers at a middle school in the northwestern

United States. The school had a one-to-one laptop program for its 237 students in the 7th and 8th

grades. Lei used student surveys and interviews of both teachers and students in order to

examine the association between the amount and type of technology use and various student

outcomes, including GPA, technological proficiency, and student development. From the

analysis of 133 student surveys, 9 student interviews, and 9 teacher interviews, Lei found several

significant results. Most notably, there was no significant association with the quantity of

technology use and students GPA. This result is an important reminder to teachers,

administrators, and school district leaders that requiring students to spend more time using
HUMAN FACTORS IN THE CLASSROOM 3

technology does not automatically lead to higher student achievement. In the language of

Postman (1995), making technology our god of education is a mistake: although technology can

contribute greatly to student achievement when implemented appropriately and effectively, the

technology itself is not the cornerstone of student success. On the contrary, technology

initiatives that merely emphasize rolling out new technology as soon as it becomes available are

more likely to lead to negative effects for students.

As Postman (1995) notes in his fifth principle for new technology implementations, a

new technology does not merely add something; it changes everything (p.192). Bringing a new

technology into the classroom can completely alter the learning experience for students. This

transformation of the learning experience may be positive for all students in some cases, but

Postman emphasizes the idea that every change likely diminishes learning for at least one student

and perhaps for many students. For this reason, technology should only be selected and

implemented when it is the best choice to serve the learning goal, not when it is the appealing

new approach. Wagner (2012) argues unfettered access to technology doesnt cause learning

any more than does unfettered access to textbooks (p.12): in other words, providing students

with a plethora of technological tools does not on its own result in better learning, but many

schools make the mistake of equating time spent using technology with inherently better or

deeper learning. The quality of technology use is far more important than the number of tools

being used or the number of hours that students spend using them, so educators should always

strive for quality over quantity with regard to educational technology.

Leis (2010) results also demonstrated a statistically significant negative association

between students GPA and technology use for entertainment and exploration purposes. When

students use of technology primarily served the purpose of play, their GPA tended to be lower.

Toyama (2015) introduces the Law of Amplification with regard to technology: technology will
HUMAN FACTORS IN THE CLASSROOM 4

amplify the human forces and intentions that are already present. If students existing goal is to

play, providing them with technology will amplify this goal and allow them to spend more time

doing so. As a result, the students will spend less time devoted to educational purposes (both out

of a lack of desire and a lack of time remaining after carrying out their entertainment goals). The

main implication for educators is the importance of establishing specific educational goals and

creating a culture in the classroom that supports those goals prior to providing students with

technology. Toyama asserts its the schools that work hard to maintain a strong learning culture,

whose faculty and parents make important decisions together, and that put their educational goals

first in making technology decisions exactly the schools with strong heart, mind, and will that

technologys power optimally amplifies (2015, p.121). The technology on its own cannot solve

the problems of a school; in fact, if a school is already struggling with student achievement or

disciplinary problems, bringing in a new technology will more likely compound the issues rather

than improve them. Schools must consider their pre-existing culture prior to implementing new

technology, as the new technology will amplify this culture whether it is positive or negative.

Because technology results in positive outcomes only where positive, capable human forces are

already in place (Toyama, 2015, p.54), improved student learning will result only from

technology implementations within schools and classrooms that have established specific

educational goals, a strong culture of learning, and a positive environment.

Another notable result of Leis (2010) study was the marginally significant influence of

general technology use on students technological proficiency, as opposed to subject-specific

technology use which had a significantly negative association with students technological

proficiency. These results support Wagners (2012) claim that we have to produce more ideas

to solve more different kinds of problems (p.2). Spending disproportionate amounts of time on

individual subject-specific technologies allows students to become experts on specific tools, but
HUMAN FACTORS IN THE CLASSROOM 5

in the rapidly advancing world of technology, tools quickly become obsolete. What will never

become obsolete are critical thinking skills the higher-level skills that allow someone to

analyze a complex problem from multiple perspectives and to propose new solutions. When

teachers use technology in the classroom, it is more important to focus on transferrable skills that

students can apply to various technologies than it is to devote significant amounts of time to one

or two tools that likely will not stand the test of time. Toyama also advocates for educators

teaching critical thinking skills rather than teaching students to use digital tools (2015, p.13), as

critical thinking skills have enduring value for students in their future, whereas proficiency with

a particular technological tool might be useless after even a couple of years. This focus on

critical thinking does not preclude educators from implementing technology and doing so

effectively: technology can be an integral component to a curriculum that emphasizes critical

thinking skills, but the technology must serve the larger educational goal of increasing students

capacity to think critically.

The critical role of the teacher in students learning is also frequently undervalued and

underestimated in todays push towards standardized curriculum and testing in education.

Frenzel, Goetz, Ldtke, Pekrun, and Sutton (2009) propose that student-perceived teacher

enthusiasm is a mediating factor for teacher enjoyment of teaching mathematics and student

enjoyment of learning mathematics. Frenzel et al. (2009) examined 1,763 7th and 8th grade

students and 71 teachers in Germany in a longitudinal study that used two time points: at the end

of the students 7th and 8th grade years. The researchers found that teachers enthusiasm in the

classroom was positively linked to student enjoyment of learning, and they concluded that

teacher and student enjoyment deserve more attention in educational research because of their

contribution to the quality of learning. While student achievement provides a glimpse into

effective teaching practices, student enjoyment of learning is often overlooked by our obsession
HUMAN FACTORS IN THE CLASSROOM 6

with data. Toyama notes not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that

counts can be counted (p.92). It may be easier to measure student achievement than student

enjoyment, as the latter is largely a self-reported construct, but enjoyment of learning can lead to

passions that Wagner (2012) describes as evolving into purpose. The joy of learning that

students can discover in the classroom after finding inspiration in a passionate teacher can

ultimately lead students to discover a purpose to pursue in their lives. Wagner also believes that

the necessary skills and habits of mind for innovation including curiosity, imagination, and

perseverance, among many others can be nurtured, taught, and mentored (2012, p.16). If

teachers allow students to see their enthusiasm for teaching and learning, students can learn from

their teachers habits of mind and will intuitively incorporate them into their own habits of mind

with regard to learning.

Frenzel et al. (2009) also concluded that teachers make a significant difference in

students emotional experience in the classroom, and although it is not a direct result of their

study they hypothesize that emotionally positive classrooms are likely to be successful

classrooms. When teachers are excited about the material they are teaching, their enthusiasm can

be contagious. Frenzel et al. (2009) found that students noticed when teachers were enthusiastic

about the content and about teaching in general, and students enjoyment of learning

mathematics increased. Although these researchers did not examine the role of educational

technology in the classroom, Toyama (2015)s Law of Amplification would support the assertion

that if appropriate technology was introduced in the classroom of an enthusiastic, passionate

teacher whose students had latched onto that enthusiasm and passion for learning the

technology would amplify the enthusiasm and would lead to deeper student learning.
A critical prerequisite for the results of the Frenzel et al. (2009) study is the students

ability to recognize teachers enthusiasm. This study seems to take for granted students ability
HUMAN FACTORS IN THE CLASSROOM 7

to read the teachers emotions, but Turkle (2015) argues that we, as a society, are losing the

ability to understand others feelings because of our increased interactions with screens instead of

faces. Turkle contends that we are losing our capacity for empathy. The results of the Frenzel et

al. study illustrate the importance of students ability to recognize teacher enthusiasm: it is

directly linked to the students own enjoyment of learning mathematics. In order to ensure that

students are able to perceive their teachers enthusiasm, teachers must not only be enthusiastic

about teaching but also must provide students with opportunities to develop their capacity for

empathy. Especially with the growing prevalence of educational technology in the classroom,

teachers must strive to keep conversation and relationships at the heart of the classroom

experience. It is essential for students to have face-to-face conversations with their teachers and

their peers so they can learn to be vulnerable and to create bonds with other people (Turkle,

2015, p.9). While Turkle does not claim that we should eliminate technology in the classroom,

she would encourage teachers and other educators to use classroom technology in moderation

and to provide our students with opportunities to engage in deep conversation with the teacher

and with their peers.

Further supporting the integral nature of the student-teacher relationship in the classroom

are the results of Putmans (2016) study examining the literacy achievement of students using

technology as opposed to traditional teacher instruction. Putman explored a literacy tool called

Istation that is used by over 4 million students in the United States. Putnam sought to determine

whether Istation promoted early literacy achievement and whether it could serve as a Vygotskian

more knowledgeable other as effectively as a teacher could. Putmans study involved 72

students from 12 kindergarten classes in two districts in the southern United States. The first

district already required Istation as a component of its literacy instruction for students. The

second district integrated technology into the curriculum but primarily used a more traditional
HUMAN FACTORS IN THE CLASSROOM 8

literacy curriculum with its students. The results of the study showed that Istation had a

statistically significant effect in early students, benefitting students greatly in the areas of hearing

and recording sounds and of letter sound knowledge. Putman noted though that these skill areas

involved lower-level literacy skills and processing abilities. For the higher-level literacy skills

such as concepts about print, reading comprehension, and overall reading level, the students who

performed the highest were those whose teacher provided high-level literacy support. These

results indicate that Istation can be an effective technological tool for drill and practice purposes,

but complex literacy skills require the support of a teacher.

Putman (2016) observed that students who worked with Istation were exposed to a very

different learning experience than students who received instruction from teachers. Students

who used Istation learned in isolation with headphones and did not speak with other people.

Students who learned with teachers participated in many social interactions with both the teacher

and their peers. Turkle (2015) advocates for conversation and human interaction as essential

components to healthy development and would warn teachers against choosing technologies that

isolate students from one another. Although teachers are under pressure to differentiate

instruction to meet individual students needs and allow students to self-pace, Putmans results

and Turkles advocacy for conversation support the need for balanced use of technology and

face-to-face interactions in the classroom. Postman (1995) would also caution against the

Faustian bargain of using technology in isolation. Postman argues that all technological change

involves some level of disadvantage (1995, p.192), and in the case of the first school district in

the Putman study students who rely primarily on Istation for literacy instruction are being

deprived of the opportunity to discuss ideas with their teacher and peers in order to develop a

deeper understanding of the meaning of what they are reading. Teachers should not fear
HUMAN FACTORS IN THE CLASSROOM 9

technology and eliminate it entirely, but it is essential for students to have time to interact with

others while they learn.

Another key result in Putmans study was the idea of feedback and responsiveness.

While the Istation program provided feedback to students and was adaptive to students needs

based on their responses, it could not provide the level of flexibility or responsiveness that the

teacher could provide. On the contrary, students who received direct teacher support benefitted

from teachers improvisational decisions about how to adapt the learning experience for the

students. The teachers were able to draw on their knowledge of their students needs

(collectively and individually) and tailor the lesson to those needs in the moment. The Istation

software was not able to provide students with the same experience.
The teachers in the Putman study were also able to vary the types of learning experiences

for students, including opportunities to write, and introduced students to metacognitive

instruction about reading. The teachers often talked about their own reading strategies aloud,

which gave students a glimpse into the way they should think and the questions they should ask

themselves as they read. Turkle says conversations with a good teacher communicate that

learning isnt all about the answers. Its about what the answers mean (2015, p.8). She also

emphasizes the irreplaceable opportunity students are offered when they watch a teacher in front

of a classroom: the opportunity to watch something think, boring bits and all. That teacher is a

model for how thinking happens, including false starts and hindsight (2015, pp.48-49).

Students learn to think by observing how their teachers think. They also learn that mistakes are

expected and acceptable, and they can persevere through perceived failures. Although Istation

can let students know when their answers are correct, it cannot tell them why those answers

matter. The teacher is the key factor in students learning to draw meaning from what they read

and to connect that meaning to other ideas.

HUMAN FACTORS IN THE CLASSROOM 10

Finally, Putmans results highlight the influence of the emotional bond and connection of

the student-teacher relationship in students achievement. The students who participated in

social interactions with teachers and peers while learning their literacy skills were observed to be

frequently smiling and laughing (Putman, 2016) and were likely enjoying the learning

experience with their teacher (Frenzel et al., 2009). The experience of interacting with the

teacher and peers in the classroom allows students to enjoy learning and to feel comfortable and

safe while doing so. The individual attention from the teacher also shows students that they are

noticed and cared for something that even a responsive software program cannot provide.

Children learn empathy by observing the efforts of others to be empathic toward them (Turkle,

2015, p.117), so students are learning to care for other people when their teachers take the time

to interact with them and help them to understand what they are learning. By developing

students capacity for empathy at a young age through the student-teacher relationship and peer-

to-peer relationships, students will have a more developed self-awareness that will allow them to

use technology in more altruistic ways.

These students who learn at a young age to care about the people around them will later

extend their desire to help others to their larger communities and ideally to the world.

Improvements in intention, discernment, and self-control allow a person to act not just in

pursuit of pressing, self-focused, short-term needs, but also toward longer-term outcomes that

may enhance others well-being (Toyama, 2015, p.165), so students who learn to care for others

are ultimately able to serve the world: they are able to develop a purpose.
The root of the desire to help others and to solve challenging problems may begin with

young students like the kindergarteners in Putmans study who either learn literacy skills in

isolation wearing headphones front of a screen or while experiencing rich social interaction with

their peers under the guidance of their teacher. The difference between the two extremes is not
HUMAN FACTORS IN THE CLASSROOM 11

in the presence or absence of technology, but rather in the appropriate balance of technology and

face-to-face interaction. There are some skills that students can learn more effectively with

technology and others that require empathy and in-person connections. Our task as educators

and especially as educational technology leaders is to choose technological tools that serve our

educational goals in effective ways. The quality of the technology use in the classroom should

always take priority over the quantity of tools or the time spent using them (Lei, 2010). We must

strive to nurture students growth in the areas of critical thinking and of empathy for others.

Technology can be a component in the curriculum that achieves these educational goals, but

technology in isolation cannot fully serve the needs of the human beings who enter our

classrooms. Our students need teachers to care for them, to be excited to see them every day, to

be enthusiastic about teaching, to show them that it is ok to fail, and to teach them how to

persevere through struggles. While teachers can and should use technology to enhance students

learning in many ways, technology cannot replace the critical role of the teacher in the

classroom.
HUMAN FACTORS IN THE CLASSROOM 12

References
Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Ldtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Sutton, R. E. (2009). Emotional transmission

in the classroom: Exploring the relationship between teacher and student

enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 705-716.

Lei, J. (2010). Quantity versus quality: A new approach to examine the relationship between

technology use and student outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3),

455-472.
Postman, Neil. (1995). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Alfred

A. Knopf.
Putman, R.S. (2016). Technology versus teachers in the early literacy classroom: an investigation

of the effectiveness of the Istation integrated learning system. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 1-22.

Toyama, Kentaro (2015). Geek heresy: Rescuing social change from the cult of technology. New

York: PublicAffairs.
Turkle, Sherry (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in the digital age. New York:

Penguin Press.
Wagner, Tony (2012). Creating innovators: The making of young people who will change the

world. New York: Scribner.