B.

Wimbish
Article Reviews
Pg. 1

Bria Wimbish
Article reviews

Theory into practice

Computers in Education: Why, When, How
by Valdemar W. Setzer and Lowell Monke
Summary:
Computers in Education: Why, When, How is an article written to theorize the mental risk
computers cause to children at an early age. The article starts off by introducing computers and
its background and saying that computers have always brought the question to everyones head
as to how computers will become a tool for education. Technology has become an excessive
obsession amongst almost all Americans. Because technology is becoming the way of the world
school systems are starting to invest in technology. Setzer and Monke believes that computers
should not be used by a student younger than 15 because that is when the student will have the
appropriate mentality to deal with computers, and it does not affect their development. Kids are
fascinated with computers, and their fascination can turn into an obsession. 16 and 17 is the age
that kids should start using computers because they have more self-control and will not become
an obsessive programmer. With an obsessive programming state the child will only care about
the computer, not the learning material being presented.
Critique:
The article Computers in Education: Why, When, How is a great article. It is written by experts
who have experienced the problem with computers in education in their classroom. The
information in this article was very useful, and I can relate to it very well. As a 9th grade teacher I
see what technology does to my students who are not yet 15 and 16. They are obsessed with their
technology and getting them to put it away is like pulling teeth. This article should be read by all
educators because it helps us see the psychological and mental effect computers have on
students. Setzer and Monke (2015) says that, Computers work with an extremely restricted class
of our thoughts, thoughts that do not have the same meaning to the machine that they represent to
us (indeed, to the machine they have no meaning at all). As a child, no thoughts should be
restricted and all classes of thoughts should be exercised. At such a young age the child is
learning their basic fundaments for life, and closing them would affect the child tremendously
when it is time to build on their fundaments. Not only do Setzer and Monke give us a problem,
they also propose a solution. Setzer and Monke (2015) says, We propose the installation of
Technology Laboratories in high schools, where students learn how machines work, including

B. Wimbish
Article Reviews
Pg. 2

the telephone, steam engine, combustion engine, electric motors, radio, TV and, obviously,
computers. A strictly practical approach should be followed in these classes, leaving theories for
the physics and chemistry classes. They are telling us that students should figure out theories for
their classes instead of technology.

References:
Setzer, V. W. (Jan 15, 2015). Computers in Education: Why, When, How. Research Gate.
Retrieved February 14, 2016, from:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valdemar_Setzer/publication/265117326_Computer
s_in_Education_Why_When_How/links/54b7f8a60cf28faced61237e.pdf.

B. Wimbish
Article Reviews
Pg. 3

Research
Mobile apps for reflection in learning: A design research in K-12 education
By: Teemu Leinonen*, Anna Keune, Marjaana Veermans, and Tarmo Toikkanen
Summary:
In this article Leinonen, Keune, Veermans, and Toikkanen showed how from their participatory
design session and pilot studies they found that using mobile apps in the classroom made it easier
for teachers and students to integrate more reflection. The apps that were created to guide this
research were two mobile apps named ReFlex and TeamUp. Leinonen, Keune, Veermans, and
Toikkanen made the apps with the idea that when enhancing student-centered and collaborative
learning reflection plays an important role. The two mobile apps were made to record individual
clips of their personal learning experiences in 60-seconds, and share it on a timeline that can be
accessed by peers, parents, and teachers(ReFlex), and group work clips sharing the progress of
their group to a timeline that is accessed by the same users (Team Up). Leinonen, Keune,
Veermans, and Toikkanen conducted their research using 165K-12 teachers in 13 European
countries as participants. Before conducting the research, teachers said that using technology in
the classroom completely controls the students by focusing their attention on how to learn that
tool rather than the lesson itself. After conducting the research the teachers found that the app
helped students engage in the first four levels of reflection identified by Fleck and Fitzpatrick
which are the theoretical frameworks that the design-based research builds on.
Critique:
Mobile apps for reflection in learning: A design research in K-12 education is an article that
provides fresh air to both teachers and students knowing that there is a mobile app that helps
integrate reflection that can be shared with their peers, parent, and teachers. The obsession with
technology within our students can now become a learning tool right at the fingertips of their
hands. Speaking from experience, my students love their cells phones, love making videos, and
love taking selfies. This app provides all of those three fascinations into a learning tool. Most
students are competitive when it comes to school work, and with this app more students will
become competitive because they can see their peers working hard and would want to do the
same. Although the mobile app was not piloted in the United States, I have no doubt in my mind
that if it reaches here it will be just a success as it was in Europe.

B. Wimbish
Article Reviews
Pg. 4

References:
Leinonen, T., Keune, A., Veermans, M., & Toikkanen, T. (2014). Mobile apps for reflection in
learning: A design research in K-12 education. Br J Educ Technol British Journal of
Educational Technology, 47(1), 184-202. Retrieved February 14, 2016.

B. Wimbish
Article Reviews
Pg. 5

Professional Practice
Teaching the English Language Arts With Technology: A Critical Approach and Pedagogical
Framework
By: Carl A. Young and Jonathan Bush
This article is written by two professors Young and Bush (2004) says they wrote this article to
present a pedagogical framework encompassing the necessary critical mindset in which
teachers of the English language arts can begin to conceive their own "best practices" with
technologya framework that is based upon their needs, goals, students, and classrooms, rather
than the external pressure to fit random and often decontextualized technology applications into
an already complex and full curriculum. Technology is evolving in the world quickly, especially
in education. Young and Bush both agree that in order to cultivate technology in literature like
the field instructors would want it must start with the teachers first. Technology has been a great
success evolving in other subject, however when it comes to English Language Arts other than
technology in writing instruction there is no further direction on how technology can be used in
the classroom to enhance instruction. Young and Bush end the article with examples of cases of
other teachers of English language arts that has developed the critical mindset and used an
informed approach when making the decision to use technology to teach the English language
arts.
Critique:
Although this article is twelve years old it still holds relevance in todays English Language Arts
classes. As an English teacher it is very hard to teach my subject without the proper use of
training into technology. In other classes such as math and science it is very easy for them to
integrate technology within their subject. Since 12 years ago there has been little ways that we
can use technology such as listening to stories, and books instead of reading them; however the
students still seem to not seem interested. Because technology is supposed to benefit students to
better help them understand the subject, the teachers will have to understand. I personally do not
find in error in this article. I actually think that Young and Bush were dead on with the issue with
Language Arts and Technology.

B. Wimbish
Article Reviews
Pg. 6

Reference:
Young, C. A. & Bush, J. (2004). Teaching the English language arts with technology: A critical
approach and pedagogical framework. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education