3.

Four Ways Technology Has Negatively Changed Education

As mentioned in earlier sections of our report, technology is radically changing the way
we understand the learning process, defined by Wikipedia as the set of strategies people
deploy in “acquiring new, or modifying existing, knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, or
preferences.” Computer-based instruction is now prevailing throughout the learning
environments all over the world, reshaping minds and imposing new roles on both
teachers and students. Thanks to the integration of technology in classroom environments,
students are active, motived and eager to learn (Al-Hariri & Al-Hattami, 2007; Aloraini,
2012; Eyyam, & Yaratan, 2014). They also assume greater responsibility for their learning
(Johnson, Schwab, & Foa, 1999). Individualizing learning, which is regarded as an
implication of technology, makes students more capable to cope with problems
independently (Viorica-Torii & Carmen, 2013). Consequently, teachers are no longer
transmitters of information; rather, they are engineers or designers of learning
environments (Hairon & Chai, 2017). Their main task is to re-arrange the elements of
effective learning through placing themselves in the middle between students and
curricula. However, recent studies have shown that technology has a negative impact on the
process of education (Fried, 2008; Wentworth & Middleton, 2014), particularly on the four
areas stated below:

• Deterioration of students’ competencies in reading, writing, and arithmetic, which are the
basic three skills any student is expected to master;

• Dehumanization of education in many environments and distortion of the relationship

between teachers and students;

• Isolation of students in a digital and virtual world that distances them from any form
of social interaction;

• Deepening of social inequalities between the haves and the have-nots tht is students who
can possess technology and those who cannot.
3.1 Deterioration of Students’ Competencies in Reading, Writing and Arithmetic

Despite the widespread that classroom technology generally improves students’ academic
achievement and enhances their motivation to accomplish their tasks (Al-Hariri & Al-Hattami,
2017; Bishop & Verleger, 2013; Clarke & Svanaes, 2014, Haßler, Major, & Hennessy, 2015;
Izadpanah & Alavi, 2016 amongst others), much reliance on technology seems to severely
affect students’ competencies in three skills that are of uncontested importance to them,
namely reading, writing and arithmetic. Spitzer (2014) gives a full account of the risks of
adopting technology in the classroom and warns against its potential negative effects on
students’ achievements. He cites literature affirming that handwriting and reading are
impaired by typing and that Information Technology (IT) brings about shallow processing of
information. That is why, students do not learn a lot from Google Books in the same fashion
they do from printed books and magazines. Similarly, Carr (2011) accuses technology of causing
our minds to be “shallow” and asserts that students who read linear texts have better
understanding and a stronger memory than those who read via theInternet. He argues
(2011, p. 90) that “The shift from paper to screen doesn’t just change the way we navigate a
piece of writing. It also influences the degree of attention we devote to it and the depth of
our immersion in it.” Carr affirms that the Internet, for instance, brings about superficial,
easily-distracted readers, as “When we go online, we enter an environment that promotes
cursory reading, hurried and distracted thinking, and superficial learning,” (2011, p. 116).
Another example of the negative effect of technological devices such as smartphones, tablets,
PCs and laptops on students’ performance is brought to us by Strain-Moritz (2016), an
experienced teacher who ascertains that texting has negatively impacted students’ ability to
write full sentences, with no fragmentation or awkward punctuation. Alhusban (2016) also
stipulates that classroom technologies drastically affect students’ ability to write, notably
when it comes to spelling and punctuation, grammatical accuracy, spelling, proofreading,
critical thinking, respect of coherence and linearity. She also argues that constant
exposure to short forms cripples students’ ability to splash out effort in writing and that
the short forms that are frequently used in texting makes it daunting for them to
distinguish formal conventions of writing from informal ones. Bronowicki, (2014) adopts a
similar viewpoint, namely that students have become lazy because of their heavy, daily
reliance on technology. The problem is even worse in primary schools where students are
overwhelmed by technology, especially smartphones; which finally leads their use of grammar
to be negatively affected by textese (e.g. 4ever instead of forever) (van Dijk et al, 2016).
Similarly, Granata (2019, paragraph 1) declares that “Students have put down beloved
paperbacks and replaced them with smartphones, iPads and other technology. Kids'
reading for pleasure has dropped tremendously over the past 40 years, and technology may
be to blame.” As far as math and arithmetic are concerned, reliance on technology in
teaching these subjects involves a plethora of potential risks. In fact, in 1998, Zheng reviewed
the negative effects of using calculators and reached the following conclusion: Concern for the
negative impact of using calculators, especially graphing calculators, is very real. Because
calculators are generally numerical in nature, students may not acquire solid conceptual
understanding. Their view of mathematics will probably be more procedural and accordingly,
their problem-solving skills may be limited. The development of their structural view about
mathematics could also be hindered. Moreover, because of it [sic.] design, a calculator may
deliver misleading information and create confusion in learning notation (1998, p. 9). Around
30 years later, precisely in 2012, the UK government announced its intention to ban
calculators in primary schools because students use them too much (Stacey, 2014). Math
and arithmetic are in their purest forms, subjects which promote discovery, exploration
and critical thinking. The use of technology in teaching these subjects, albeit helpful,
does constitute a hindrance to the flourishment of students’ analytical reasoning, research has
proven. The

3.2. Dehumanising Effect of Technology

While the use of technology has increased the quantity of information taught in a shorter
time and has definitely made students able to visualise this information in a better way (e.g.
via PowerPoint Presentations, maps and charts), the overreliance on technology in
classrooms has a dehumanising effect. Kemp et al. (2015, p.4) announces that over the
last decade in particular, “teaching has been ripped from the realm of human endeavours and
morphed into a technological leviathan that is slowly usurping the soul of the profession.” This
‘leviathan’, a mythical sea monster according to the Jewish beliefs, is available in many
areas and at many levels of education, including pre-packaged curricula that are not
designed by the teacher of a particular course. In higher-education institutions and in online
courses, for instance, teachers present their lessons from afar, and students are required to
interact with machines, rather than with human beings. The ultimate result is a teacher
who does not know anything or very little about his/her students and students showing no
close relationship with their teacher. Cazan et al (2016); Izadpanah & Alavi (2016) and Nye
(2006) amongst others, have already highlighted the dehumanizing effect of technology
on student-teacher relationships. In fact, Nye (2006, p. 186) argues that Technology “pulls
you away from the physical environment. You really do tune out the world,” and that “Today’s
college students are habituated to a world of online blogging, instant messaging, and Web
browsing that leaves electronic traces,” (p. 188). Izadpanah & Alavi (2016) studied the attitudes
of a group of Iranian high-school students towards using computers as a medium to facilitate
learning English in classrooms. Results collated from the study show that about 58% of the
students involved in the survey believe that using computers has a dehumanising effect.
Similar results were found by Cazan et al (2016), who investigated the relationship
between the level of anxiety among some high-school and university students in Romania,
and their computer literacy. Investigation has shown that the higher the students’
computer self-efficacy is, the less anxiety they have in the classrooms. In a society like
the Romanian one, where access to computers at home is very limited, many students
are expected to feel anxious when they are expected to handle digital devices in the
classrooms. Dependence on technology in the classrooms also entails the lack of rapport
between teachers and students and/or among students themselves; which leads to eroding the
social relationships involved in teaching, thereby eroding one of the main aims of
education (Nneji, 2014). If teachers depend on technology for a long time in the classrooms,
there is hardly any time for them to have any impact on their students. In the same fashion,
students do not have the opportunity to develop sound relationships with one another.
Rivedal (2017) refers to the dehumanising aspect of technology as a “zombie walk” and
writes (paragraph 6) that “Our students who are the most disengaged are typically the ones
who are stuck on their phones and walking the halls with their heads down.” Wilkins (2014)
also cites facts about teachers’ and learners’ attitudes towards the use of technology and its
drastic effect on student-teacher relationships, with some believing that using technology
hampers the rapport between teachers and students and forms an obstacle to easy
communication between them.

3.3 Technology and Isolation

One distinctive feature of face to face teaching is collectivism and collaboration whilst
the most distinctive feature of technology-based teaching is the lack of any feeling of
collectivism or togetherness. The psychoanalytic Theory defines isolation as a defence
mechanism undertaken by the mind when individuals are caught in a context that they find
threatening or unpleasant. That is why students who frequently use technology gradually
develop a feeling of safety and security when “wired” to their gadgets, and start keeping
away from all forms of social connections which may get them disconnected. In 2001, Paul
& Brier coined the word “friendsickness” to refer to the isolation students feel when moving
to college and leaving old school friendships behind. They pretend that technology bridges
that gap in relationships and provides those young students with the impression that those
friendships have not faded away. Technology helps Technology cocoons individuals in the
virtual world, enmeshes them and brings about a feeling of isolation. Lee (2009, p. 510) calls
attention to the danger of technology-enhanced isolation and the threatening impact it may
have on the children’s social development, arguing that The observation that a computer is
placed in an individual’s room rather than a family room and that a child uses a computer alone
without any other family members’ presence amplifies concerns about social isolation and
harmful influences on children’s social development Turkle (2011) points to the dichotomous
effect of technology when it tears its user between the illusive impression of company, on
the one hand, and the dreadful reality of isolation, on the other. She stipulates (p. 280):
“Online, we easily find ‘company’, but are exhausted by the pressure of performance. We enjoy
continual connection but rarely have each other’s attention.” In fact, and particularly in virtual
or distance learning, students’ relationships with their teachers and colleagues are very weak;
which may bring about a feeling of isolation and hamper students’ need for collaboration
(Croft et al, 2010). In the UK alone, for instance, 13 universities have distance learning
programmes allowing more than 1500 Master’s programme students to study via the
Internet. Although these students are supported in many ways, via interactive assignments,
tailored support and online forums, they do not have access to the community of students
living on campus; which creates a sense of loneliness (Vonberg, 2015). This feeling of
isolation often results in afeeling of loneliness and is greatly related to the dehumanising
effect of technology. Both issues involve the neglect of human relations in the educational
field and prioritize thorough dependence on technology. Teachers depend on technological
devices to teach and students are deprived of any form of social interaction. What is more
alarming is that isolation is more and more prevalent among young students who, across
the world, attend schools where the use of tablets is commonplace. Karsenti & Fievez
(2013) evoke the case of Quebec children being distracted due to the excessive reliance on
tablets in learning. Iserbyt et al (2014) insist that the repetitive use of technology-based
games and entertainment, in a bid to render the lessons more appealing, entails students’
isolation, and could finally lead to poorer outcomes of learning. Distraction can also be
added to the technical problems accompanying the use of tablets by young students, even
in the case of completing simple tasks such as gap filling and matching, especially if there is no
technical support available to deal with those problems in a prompt way (Culén &
Gasparini, 2012). Moreover, the advent of smartphones has led to a quantum leap in
the integration of ICT in education. Smartphones are now widely used in many areas
around the globe. Supported by a large number of educational apps, Smartphones are seen
as a promising way of teaching, especially at the higher-educational level (El-Hussein &
Cronje, 2010). Smartphones are currently seen as facilitators of sharing content and
communication through messaging (Kearney et al, 2012). However, research has proven
that the widespread use of smartphones in the learning process leads to student
distraction, the fragmentation of knowledge and the inability of teachers to manage
classrooms (Şad & Göktaş, 2014). In short, isolation and loneliness seem to be the
ultimate repercussion of students’ use of technology as, being totally immersed in manipulating
the classroom digital gadgets, they often forget there are classmates they can rely on and
interact with.

3.4 Technology and the Gap between Social Classes

Another negative aspect of reliance on technology in education is the big gap that
technology creates between the rich and the poor. Large differences between developed
and developing countries are very clear in the infrastructure of schools. While schools in
developed countries are provided with nearly all technological devices (PCS, laptops,
tablets, projectors and Internet access), those in developing countries largely lack all these
devices. Thus, students in developing countries graduate with limited basic technological skills
(e.g., PC literacy) and face huge problems to find a well-paid job, or find it too difficult to
compete in the global market. Even in developed countries, there is usually a digital divide
(van Dijk & Hacker, 2011); that is, there is a big difference between students coming from
different social backgrounds. Poor students may have access to technology in classrooms,
but cannot afford any gadget at home, which is very clear in the academic achievement
of these poor students compared to their rich peers. According to a report by the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), townspeople in the US are 50%
more likely to have Internet access than those living in rural areas (Steele-Carlin, 2017). A
comment by Sarah Phinney, the distance learning coordinator at Porterville Adult School in
Central California, shows the results of this digital divide as follows: In my seven years’
experience working with this population [at Porterville Adult School], I have found that a great
number of the students we serve, especially those who speak English as a second language, are
computer illiterate and thus are on the lean side of the divide (Steele-Carlin, 2017). If this is the
result of the digital divide in the US, it must be much bigger and more serious in other
countries where the divide is bigger as is the case in Egypt where private schools and
universities have a good, working technological environment compared to state schools
and universities, which is reflected in the greatly different levels of graduates from both
types of education (Warschauer, 2011). Although the Egyptian government has provided
many of its schools with technological devices and access to the Internet, they are hardly
used because of severe red tape or lack of training provided to teachers. At home, the
majority of Egyptians cannot afford to buy any technological device or original software;
therefore, most graduates of stateducational institutions lack the basic PC skills and need
much rehabilitation after they graduate. Needless to say that the digital divide may
develop antisocial behaviour because the technology-marginalized students may develop a
feeling of oppression and nonachievement.

4. Suggested Paths for Better Practice

Nowadays, the use of technology in education is pervasive. Modern technological devices

have known vast expansion all over the world, leading to substantial changes in the way
students learn and instructors teach. Quite often, the degree of success of an educational
institution is measured against the amount of technology that is being integrated in its
classrooms. Technology therefore has so far had a substantial stake in students’ social and
educational lives; which obviously raises a heated concern about the effects of its use. A
stockpile of researchers now look at the impact of technology on students’ lives with
intrigue and strive to curb the drastic effects of these classroom gadgets on students’ behavior
and attitudes. In the while, no one contests that removing technology from the classroom is
practically impossible. Yet limiting its negative effects is still at our reach. UNICEF (2017, p.
122) advises technology users to “Harness the good” and “limit the harm.” Wilkins (2014)
provides a list of recommendations on how to handle technology in a way that would not be
threatening to students. Her suggestions encompass:

• Making sure learners to interact with each other even when immersed in their digital world,

• Devising activities which necessarily promote communication and collaboration,

• Sharing and comparing (blog posts, classroom projects …) to see how technology can
connect learners all around the world,
• Encouraging tech-savvy students to design interactive content that would enrich the
course …. Teacher training may also be another springboard whereon to stand when
seeking to guarantee the appropriate use of technology.

In fact, the more training teachers receive, the better way technology would be used and the
less negative effects it would entail. Laurillard (2002) argues that to be effective, technology-
based devices would not be effective unless their use is accompanied by appropriate
pedagogical approaches. Similarly, McFarlane (1997) ascertains that inserting technology in
teaching will not have the expected added value unless objectives are clearly set and tasks
are well-designed. Moreover, educational systems are now required to ensure that integrating
ICT programs in the curriculum should be supported by effective Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) programs for instructors wherein technology-based learning is
incorporated. Parents should also be made aware that technology is not a blessing all the time,
and that it is now their own priority to harness that strong drive among their offsprings to use
technology everywhere and at any time. Technology is not static. It constantly changes,
bringing in new devices and sending others to obsolescence. Taking this aspect of technology in
consideration involves keeping up with that pace and aligning pedagogy with technology, thus
harnessing hindrances and augmenting benefits.

5. Conclusion

Over the past 50 years or so, technology has found its way to the classroom and has
indomitably altered the face of learning and teaching. Technology is now considered as
one of the most important skills 21st century learners should possess. It is a new literacy
that facilitates access to multitude sources of knowledge. Whether positive or negative,
this move towards integrating technology in the classroom will never come to an end, and
each new development will nurture another more appealing one. A lot has been written and
said about students being technology crazy and they were given so many names: ‘the Net
Generation’ (Tapscott, 1999), ‘Digital Natives’ (Prensky, 2001), ‘the Gamer Generation’
(Carstens and Beck, 2005), ‘New Millennium Learners’ (Pedró, 2006), etc. This craze about
technology should be supervised, otherwise, risks would be numerous and effects would be
drastic. In fact, while many of our students believe that they are learning well when using
technology, many negative and non-educational attitudes are prevailing among them.
Obviously, no one can imagine learning without technology and no one can currently
understand how an educational environment can attain desired purposes and aims without
actual use of technology. However, the use, precisely the excessive use, of technology
might contradict many educational purposes if measures were not taken to limit the negative
changes it could cause to education. The significance of the present article lies in the fact
that it has shed light on the potential negative effects of using technology in the
classroom, and suggested a number of practical solutions which would presumably help limit
these effects.

References

Algerioy, A. M. (1999). The impact of multimedia on the collection of first-grade

students in secondary mathematics in Riyadh Journal of King Saud University - Languages and
Translation, 24 (2), 75-82

Al-Hariri, M., & Al-Hattami, A. (2017). Impact of students' use of technology on their learning
achievements in physiology courses at the University of Dammam. Journal of Taibah
University Medical Sciences, 12(1), 82-85.

Alhusban, A. M. (2016). The Impact of Modern Technological Tools on Students’ Writing Skills
in English as a Second Language. US-China Education Review, 6 (7), 438-443.

Aloraini, S. (2012). The impact of using multimedia on students’ academic achievement

in the College of Education at King Saud University. Journal of King Saud University-Languages
and Translation, 75-82. Ascione,
 L. (2018). Do other countries value classroom technology equally? Available:
https://www.eschoolnews.com/2018/12/04/do-other-countries-value-classroom-technology-
equally/ (July 2, 2019).

Bahloul, M. (2012). Lights! Camera! Action and the Brain: The Use of Film in Education.
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Bishop, J., & Verleger, M. (2013). The flipped classroom: A survey of the research. 120th
ASEE National Conference Proceedings, 30, pp. 1-8. Atlanta, GA.

Bronowicki, K. A. (2014). Technology's adverse effects on students' writing: An emphasis on

formal writing is needed in an academic curriculum. Master's Thesis: State University of
New York. Available:https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
referer=https://www.google.com.eg/&httpsredir=1&article=1399&context=ehd_theses

Carr, N. (2011). The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York: W. W.
Norton & Company.

Carstens, A. & Beck, J. (2005). Get Ready for the Gamer Generation. Tech Trends:
Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 49(3), 22-25. Carter, S. P., Greenberg,

K. & Walker, W. S. (2017). Should Professors Ban Laptops? EducationNext, 17(4), 68-74.

Cazan, A., Cocoradă, E., & Maican, C. (2016). Computer anxiety and attitudes towards the
computer and the internet with Romanian high-school and university students. Computers in
Human Behavior, 55, 258-267.

Christensen, K. S. (1999). A Comparison of Student Performance in Human Development

Classes Using Three Different Modes of Delivery: Online, Face-to-Face, and Combined.
Department of Education: Drake University.

Clarke, B., & Svanaes, S. (2014). An updated literature review on the use of tablets in
education. Tablets for Schools. UK: Family Kids & Youth. Croft,
N. Dalton, A. & Grant, M. (2010). Overcoming isolation in distance learning: Building a
learning community through time and space. Journal for Education in the Built Environment,
5(1), 27-64.

Culén, A., & Gasparini, A. (2012). Tweens with the iPad classroom – Cool but not really
helpful. International Conference on e-learning and e-technologies in education (ICEEE),
(pp. 1-6). Technical University of Lodz, Poland.

Dansieh, S. A. (2011). SMS Texting and Its Potential Impacts on Students’ Written
Communication Skills. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 222-229.

Denoël, E., Dorn, E., Goodman, A., Hiltunen, J., Krawitz, M. & Mourshed, M. (2017).
Drivers of Student Performance: Insights from Europe. Mckinsey & Company. El-

Hussein, M., & Cronje, J. (2010). Defining mobile learning in the higher education
landscape. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 12-21.

Epper, R. & Bates, A. (2001). Teaching Faculty How to Use Technology. USA: American Council
on Education. Oryx Press.

Eyyam, R., & Yaratan, H. (2014). Impact of use of technology in mathematics lessons on
student achievement and attitudes. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,
42(1), 31S-42S.

Flanagan, J., L. (2008). Technology: The Positive and Negative Effects on Student Achievement.
NY: University

Fried, C. B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers &
Education, 50(3), 906-914.

Granata, K. (2019). Tech May Be to Blame for Decline in Students' Reading for Pleasure:
Education World. Available: https://www.educationworld.com/a_news/technology-proves-
negatively-effect-reading-skills
Hairon, S., & Chai, C. (2017). The learning revolution: From pedagogues to designers of
learning. Learning: Research and Practice, 3(3), 79-84.

Haßler, B., Major, L., & Hennessy, S. (2015). Tablet use in schools: A critical review of the
evidence for learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(2), 139-156.

Hull, G. A. (2003). At Last: Youth Culture and Digital Media: New Literacies for New Times.
Research in the Teaching of English, 38 (2), 229-233.

Iserbyt, P. C. (2014). Learning basic life support (BLS) with tablet PCs in reciprocal learning
at school: Are videos superior to pictures? A randomized controlled trial. Resuscitation, 85,
809-813.

Izadpanah, S., & Alavi, M. (2016). The perception of EFL high school students in using of
computer technology in the process of learning: Merits and demerits. Advances in Language
and Literary Studies, 7(3), 146-156.

Johnson, M., Schwab, R., & Foa, L. (1999). Technology as a change agent for the teaching
process. Theory into Practice, 38(1), 24-30.

Karsenti, T., & Fievez, A. (2013). The iPad in education: Uses, benefits and challenges. A
survey of 6,057 students and 302 teachers in Quebec, Canada. Montreal: CRIFPE.

Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from
a pedagogical perspective. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 20(3), 1-17.

Kemp, A., Preston, J., Page, C., Harper, R., Dillard, B., Flynn, J., & Yamaguchi, M. (2015).
Technology and teaching: A conversation among faculty regarding the pros and cons of
technology. Qualitative Report, 19(3), 1-23.

Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the

Effective Use of Educational Technology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

LeBlanc A.G., Katzmarzyk P.T. & Barreira T.V. et al. (2015). Correlates of Total Sedentary
Time and Screen Time in 9–11 Year-Old Children around the World: The International Study of
Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle and the Environment. PLoS ONE, 10 (6). Available: from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26068231 (June 13, 2019).

Lee S. J. (2009). Online Communication and Adolescent social Ties: Who Benefits more
from Internet Use? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(3), 509-531.

Lowerison, G., Sclater, J., Schmid, R. F., & Abrami, P. (2006). Student perceived
effectiveness of computer technology use in post-secondary classrooms. Computers &
Education, 47(4), 465-489.

McFarlane, A. (1997). What Are We and How Did We Get Here? Information Technology
and Authentic Learning: Realizing the Potential of Computers in the Primary Classroom.
London: Routledge.

Nicholas, C., Dalton, A., & Grant, M. (2010). Overcoming isolation in distance learning:
Building a learning community through time and space. Journal for Education in the Built
Environment, 5(1), 27-64.

Nneji, B. U. (2014). Technologies in education and the dehumanization and imperialization

of pedagogy: The African perspective. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 8(1),
86-105.

Nye, D. E. (2006). Technology Matters: Questions to Live with. The MIT Press.

Paul, E. & Brier, S. (2001). Friendsickness in the Transition to College: Precollege

Predictors and College Adjustment Correlates. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79(1),
77-89.

Pedró, F. (2006, May). The New Millennium Learners: Challenging our Views on ICT and
Learning. Available:. https://publications.iadb.org/en/new-millennium-learners-challenging-
our-views-ict-and-learning

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Purcell,
K., Buchanan, J. & Friedrich, L. (2013). The Impact of Digital Tools on Student Writing and How
Writing is taught in Schools: Pew Research Center. Available:
https://www.pewinternet.org/2013/07/16/the-impact-of-digital-tools-on-student-writing-and-
how-writing-is-taug.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York:
Simon and Schuster.

Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied
Linguistics (4th ed). London: Pearson.

Rivedal, K. (2017). Madison Students Required to Disconnect from Social Media Apps in
Pilot Program. Wisconcin State Journal. Available:
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/local_schools/madison-students-required-to-
disconnect-f (June 15, 2019).

Roblyer, M. D. (2003). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching, (3rd ed). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Şad, S., & Göktaş, Ö. (2014). Preservice teachers' perceptions about using mobile phones
and laptops in education as mobile learning tools. British Journal of Educational Technology,
45(4), 606-618E-ISSN 2240-0524 ISSN 2239-978X Journal of Educational and Social Research
Vol 9 No 4 October 2019 20

Spitzer, M. (2014). Information technology in education: Risks and side effects. Trends in
Neuroscience and Education, 3(3-4), 81-85.

Stacey, O. (2014, November). Subtracting calculators from maths tests doesn’t add up.
Available: https://thenferblog.org/2014/11/12/subtracting-calculators-from-maths-tests-
doesnt-add-up/

Steele-Carlin, S. (2017, June). Caught in the digital divide. Education World. Available:
http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech041.shtml
Strain-Moritz, T. (2016). Perceptions of Technology Use and Its Effects on Student Writing.
(Master's Thesis). Available: https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
referer=https://www.google.com.eg /&httpsredir=1&article=1399&context=ehd_theses

Tapscott, D. (1999). Growing up Digital: the Rise of the Net Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

The Josephson Institute of Ethics. (2009). Character Study Reveals Predictors of Lying and
Cheating. Available: https://josephsoninstitute.org/surveys/ The National Center for
Education Statistics. Computer and Internet Use. Available:
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=46

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why we Expect more from Technology and less from Each
Other. New York: Basic Books.

UNICEF Report (2017). The State of the World’s Children 2017: Children in a Digital
World. Available: https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/SOWC_2017_ENG_WEB.pdf (June
14, 2019).

van Dijk, Ch. N., van Witteloostuijn, M., Vasić, N. Avrutin, S. and & Blom, E. (2016). The
influence of texting language on grammar and executive functions in primary school children.
PloS One, 11(3), e0152409.

van Dijk, J., & Hacker, K. (2011). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon.
The Information Society: An International Journey, 19(4), 315-326. Viorica

-Torii, C., & Carmen, A. (2013). The impact of educational technology on the learning styles of
students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 851-855. Vonberg, J. (2015, December
8). The loneliness of the long distance learner. The Guardian. Available:
https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/dec/08/you-work-in-a-
vacuum-the-loneliness-of-the-long-distance-learner

Wallace, K. (2009, June 17). High-Tech Cheating on the Rise at Schools. Cbsnews.
Available: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/high-tech-cheating-on-the-rise-at-schools/
Warschauer, M. (2011). Dissecting the "digital divide": A case study in Egypt. The
Information Society: An International Journal, 297-304.

Wentworth, D., & Middleton, J. (2014). Technology use and academic performance.
Computers & Education, 78, 306-311.

Wilkins, K. (2014, May). How New Technologies Affect Student-Teacher Relationships. British
Council Voices Magazine. Available: https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/new-
technologies-affect-student-teacher-relationships

Zheng, T. (1998). Impacts of using calculators in learning mathematics. The 3rd Asian
Technology Conference on Mathematics (ATCM’98), 1-10. Available:
http://www.any2any.org/EP/1998/ATCMP015/paper.pdf