Digital Equity - Tuesday section
For Tuesday section students:Look through the postings for this discussion on equity, and post at least 2 brief responses this week about your thoughts on digital equity and what others have written on this blog. Do you agree or disagree? What personal experience can you draw upon? What can we as educators do to help move our students toward digital equity?
posted by Elizabeth Langran @ 3/31/2009 04:57:00 PM
36 Comments:
I believe Alec MacGillis meant when he referred to ‘digital divide’ are the disparities between a wealthy and poor school districts. Both districts use technology but they are divided in the way in which they use them. The wealthy district used technology to enhance good teaching whereas the poor district used technology to ‘teach’ students. Diane McGrath talked about the ‘digital divide’ between girls and boys. Unless girls are in the right setting they typically don’t gravitate towards technology as boys do.
The term “digital divide”, as referenced by Alec MacGillis, refers to the divide between upper and lower socioeconomic levels when it comes to technology in schools. Because of poor funding in some schools, there is not enough emphasis on educational technology and improving these standards. Diane McGrath;s issue of “equity” refers to technology being a seemingly male-dominated field, but explains that females have equally as much interest in the subject; Girls appear to enjoy computer games, etc as much as males.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think MacGillis refers to how different schools use digital media or technology with their students. In the article, it referenced how schools containing minorities used computer software to try and increase test scores while suburban areas were able to utilize various media to enhance more thinking skills. Definitely a “divide” in the sense of the outcome of students’ abilities and overall learning. The other article talked about the difference between boys and girls and how they utilize technology. Basically, just as in math and science areas, girls tend to not be as comfortable with technology as boys are. The article showed how if given the appropriate setting and structure, girls can achieve by the use of technology.
Alec MacGillis’ concept of the “digital divide” refers to the educational gap caused by technology found in school districts. The divide itself is correlated to the socioeconomic differences of the schools and their community. Specifically, those with wealth focus on hiring teachers whereas those without it focus on purchasing computers to teach students.
Diane McGrath’s focus on equity looks at the relationship of female students to their male counterparts in terms of technology use. Female students tend towards more relationship building techniques to overcome what is viewed by many as a gap between male and female students.
They both think that there is an unevenness that exists between people and the use of technology. I think that MacGillis thinks of digital divide as people who are not on the same level technologically due to economic reasons. Digital equity according to McGrath focuses more on the uneven balance of women to men in the technological world.
Digital divide in both articles mainly refers to the differences in the use of technology in schools. Whereas McGrath focuses on the differences between the way boys and girls use technology and software, MacGillis focuses on the differences between two school districts: one in an affluent Baltimore community and one in a poor county of Hamden, NJ.
Digital equity refers mainly to providing equal chances to children of not only using a software but of learning how to creatively use technology. The focus in MacGillis article is that to be able to effectively use technology in the classroom one has to have good teachers, qualified professionals and that the mere presence of computers and use of game-type software does not exactly mean creative and student-centered technology use.
Digital divide refers to the ability for girls and boys to have equal access to technology. While girls and boys in any given classes have the same opportunities to use technology, their needs may be different. While boys tend to want to naturally explore independently, girls need to use social interaction to stimulate or motivate their success and interaction. Also, girls tend to need more opportunities to organize their ideas beforehand and then use those ideas while accessing technology.
Digital equity refers to equal opportunity for students to access technology. For example, urban school districts lack funding, training and expertise required to use technology effectively while districts in more affluent areas do not have this problem.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Digital divide refers to the gap in opportunity that exists between schools in relation to the type of computer technology that is utilized in the classroom to further learning. Specifically, Mr. MacGillis points to the imbalance that is created between school districts, as lower-income districts look to drill-and-practice software to address math and reading remediation efforts, and higher-income districts integrate more sophisticated technology solutions that enable teachers and classrooms to complement lesson plans and learning initiatives. There is a stark contrast between the two methods of technology integration.
Diane McGrath refers to digital equity specifically in the context of the greater numbers of male students who pursue technology.
Digital divide means the gap between what the haves have and the have nots do not have. Digital divide is a question of access. Digital equity refers more to the quality of software, personnel, and actual use of whatever technology a school may have. For instance, the one article focused on the use of technology to drill rote skills. While the schools in question may have computers, they are not using them in an effective or educationally sound way.
Digital divide is the difference between the "have's and the have nots" with regard technology. That is there are those in our society that have access to technology and are technologically literate and those that are not. Often this divide exists in schools and differs between wealthier school districts and poorer ones. It can also refer to the difference between male and female use of technology. Digital equity has to do with finding a balance and bridging the gap.
I think that the when the authors refer to digital divide and digital equity, they are meaning that some school districts are not as privileged when it comes to technology. Low income school districts are purchasing remedial software, and richer school districts buy a more elaborate software that will actually help students score better on tests. Poor school districts only remediate with software, this won’t help score higher on tests.
According to the authors I fell that the terms digital divide and digital equity are referring to the idea that children that grow up in areas where technology is poor do not get the same benefits that children do that grow up in areas that are more affluent. In addition, students that are using technology in the poorer areas do not have the same quality of software, although districts are buying software so students can raise their test scores.
Digital divide and digital equity to me imply the abundance and lack of access to the tools of technology. This can best be seen between developed and undeveloped countries. Digital equity, in my interpretation correlates to the actual skills possessed by a individual user, and of course, to the actual hardware that the user has access to.
by
William Stowell
Alec MacGillis makes a number of great points supporting his contention that the heavy investment in computer learning labs and software which has been forced upon many school districts which contain low achieving schools are short-changing their students and are not serving them well. They could be so much better served by hiring more teachers to reduce class size, and tailoring their curriculum to their students.
Reflecting on our class discussion in relation to Alec MacGillis’ article, I believe that his opinion that a “new digital divide” exists, bears out in some of our local school districts. For example, the Norwalk School District has more computers per child (2.5) than New Canaan (3.5), the latter being a wealthier school district that presumably has more money to spend on technology. With a state average of 2.9 computers per child, clearly access to hardware does not seem to be the issue here, which supports MacGillis' contention. Yet as he points out, there is a reading gap between poorer and wealthier schools, which the data from these two districts also demonstrate. In Norwalk, by the time students take the CAPT in high school, only 30.9% are at State Goal in Reading Across the Disciplines whereas in New Canaan, 82.4% meet this goal. As a solution to narrowing the reading gap in the wake of NCLB, he mentions widespread use of drilling software in lower income schools and the ineffectiveness of this form of remediation. This reminded me of the use of the audio-lingual method of language teaching that was popular in the mid-20th century. It was based on the behaviorist approach to learning which has since been shown to be inadequate by many language acquisition theorists. Yet at the time it was hailed as a great way to use technology to teach. Similarly, software companies and certain school districts tout the use of the new technology – computers and reading drill software - as an effective method to improve student reading scores. However, MacGillis quotes a Howard County assistant superintendent as saying that the drill software cannot provide the “rich literary environment that produces good readers.” Thus I conclude, after looking at this article and the local data more closely, that access to technology in the form of putting lots of computers in schools is not a quick fix for filling the gap that clearly exists in reading scores in Connecticut. (Remember the ConnCAN Data we saw in class about Connecticut’s achievement gap? It was really quite shocking to see how bad off this state is.) There is danger in using popular or seemingly miracle methods of teaching that are not based solidly on good learning theory and the use of computers in the classroom is no exception. While having computers as a resource in schools is a first step, we need to go much further to create the digital equity that students across our state need. So how do we do that?
(Above Data taken from the 2007-08 Strategic Profiles)
I agree with JBH's post and thought it was certainly notable that the access to technology is not the primary problem here. As JBH stated, Norwalk schools have a 2.5/1 computer to student ratio, whereas New Canaan, the presumably wealthier school district, has a lower ratio of 3.5/1. My initial statement regarding the term "digital divide" was that it describes the divide between upper and lower socioeconomic levels in terms of technological funding. I now realize that funding is not the only issue and that the problem lies in what the technology is being used for. Instead of simply having access to the internet or the opportunity to play computer games during free time, funding for technology should be better spent on ways to enhance students' education.
While the correlation between educational technology and funding for the school district is certainly still there, the problem is not as I had initially predicted. While the lower income school district is increasingly having more access to the computers, they are focusing on drill and kill software, while the wealthier schools emphasize a more sophisticated approach to learning.
After having read the comments, we can all agree that the problem is not the lack of technology in the schools but how that technology is used. In MacGillis' article it was noted that the poorer school districts are spending so much money on software which in the long run is not benefiting the students, even though scores may slightly go up. The districts should really concentrate on decreasing class sizes,ensure that the children are receiving more support from the teachers, and most of all are properly guided when using software. The article commented on a teacher who described "Compass" time as an opportunity for a break and a chance for the children to work independently. Well, while she is taking a break who is guiding these students, many of which are lost and do not know how to use the software appropriately. Very ineffective use of technology and in my eyes a waste of money not to mention valuable learning time. So why are these poorer school districts being advised and manipulated by software vendors? These schools need to have appropriate teachers/administrators as well as technical support to ensure that students are receiving direction as well as a program that promotes learning and advancement!
This comment has been removed by the author.
This is in response to stuccifairfield and others who feel hiring personnel over providing technology is a more efficient use of funds. Hiring capable teachers should certainly be a priority for schools, but realistically it proves as an unstable course of action for lower income school systems. As we read in the article "Law, software fuel new 'digital divide'", the school that spent $8 million on a contract providing computers and software most likely made the correct choice due to difficulty in maintaining new teachers. Faculty retention in a low income school is a concern. Pressured to provide for students probably became the focus when the administration decided to make such a contract. In a perfect world, a balance should be found between gaining new technology as well as providing the resources for proper implementation. Perhaps instead of hiring new staff members, the current teachers could be taught about the incoming technology.
It’s sad and pathetic that low income schools need to rely on software programs to ‘teach’ their students instead of highly qualified teachers, but the fact of the matter is that it’s hard to keep good teachers on staff. I don’t agree with the argument that the principle form Hatch Middle School (technology isn’t going anywhere as long as you keep paying the bill, but teachers aren’t guaranteed to stay), but I understand the principle behind it. Instead of focusing on ‘kill and drill’ software programs the school systems should investigate interactive technology- programs that require higher order thinking rather then rote memorization.
After reading the artile that talked about the differences in the use of technology between girls and boys. I learned that boys tend to have an easier time with technology because they tend to enjoy more computer based games such as video games. Girls seem to use technology more for inputing and gaining information and not so much for manipulation use. Although there have been studies done that if students become more involved in technology they will do better with mathematics.
I do not agree with the idea that technology can replace teachers as tempting as that might be, because technology is just a tool that requires knowledgeable people to choose, purchase and utilize it in order to enhance learning. As mentioned in some of the previous posts, it is understandable why struggling schools would be tempted to try to use technology for a quick fix or as a substitute for recruiting and retaining good teachers because of their expense. Unfortunately as with most things in life, if something seems to be too good to be true, it probably is and so it is with the use of computers as a substitute for good teaching. As the result of this course, I am finding that I look at the technology that surrounds me differently. I am coming to understand more fully its potential to improve my teaching but I also see its dangers. Placing students in front of the computer without a plan for how that technology will add to their learning is a little like plopping children in front of the TV so they can learn language. Studies have shown that without human contact and interchange, language acquisition is thwarted. It seems to me there is a parallel here with the use of technology in the classroom. As far as the topic of moving my students toward digital equity is concerned, I am starting with the idea of modeling its use for them and showing them resources in the community that they can use to support their language learning. Awareness is a start....
I agree with CEKearney's statement that it's really sad that the lower income school systems feel obligated to rely on computer programs to essentially teach the students. Unfortunately, the bigger issue here is that it's a continual cycle that lower income schools end up with many under-qualified and/or uncertified teachers, don't meet state standards on formal testing, and then don't receive the necessary funds to improve these standards. This is not to say that all teachers in this situation are not capable of successfully teaching students, but they are certainly at a disadvantage. Since it's easier said than done to quickly correct this situation, we have to come up with other solutions. As CEKearney suggested, we should focus on purchasing and implementing more interactive educational technology, rather than the "kill and drill" software that can often be found in lower income school systems.
With regard to technology use among boys and girls, I agree that it is important to recognize general differences between boys and girls; however, I believe it is more important to regard students as individuals, not as members of a gender. I teach only high school boys. Whenever I assign a technology-based project, they are not all naturally excited. What appeals more to them is when I create projects that allow them the freedom to focus on what interests them. So, while efforts should be made to engage girls in technology, I think that teachers should remember that each student is an individual, and as such, they should allow for creativity and student choice.
I agree with what Sandra said: the problem is not the lack of technology, but the way it is used. And we saw it last week with the school districts demographics, the lower the scores, the more computers per student they had. And while it is difficult for poor-performing schools to keep their faculty, might be the money provided for technology could be used for different purposes. The article suggests hiring bonuses and increase in salaries for teachers; I say that is a start... (bonuses seem to motivate everybody nowadays) and then there would be better quality in education, as well as better test scores, and then the circle will start to form. And with better trained staff there will be improvements in creative uses of technology as well as better learners.
I work with both boys and girls in the classroom. My Esl students are both boys and girls. Each student needs to be seen as a unique individual. As far as technology I have experienced that my students both boys and girls like to research on what interests them. Each student should have the freedom to express their interests. All my students enjoy games such as StarFall and FunBrain.
I feel that students are all individuals and because of this they enjoy different types of activities. I also think that when students are sterotyped into acting in a certain way this makes them feel that they have to act according to the sterotype.
It seems to be that the implementation of technology has become dependent on economics once again. There was a sort of unanimous theory that we came to last class about school systems not having the difficult time of funding computers for implementation into the classroom. Unfortunately, from most of the posts, it seems to be that financial standing for a school is impeding the technological growth. I think it is interesting to note this change and to take into account the current economic climate. School budgets are becoming increasingly scrutinized and I am curious as to the actual breakdown of expenditures. Perhaps the school that spent $8 million towards technology advancement did so out of fear for losing that piece of the school’s budget in the following years had it not been spent. I am hard pressed to repeat what seems to be obvious to us all in saying that certified personnel are a must. I do feel, however, that lower income schools are backed up into a wall so to speak from various pressures to meet certain standards. Thankfully we are benefiting from such a course here at Fairfield to be prepared for these situations.
Teachers cannot be replaced by technology and that is not whatt I meant in my previous post. The message I intended to convey was; the schools who believe the most reliable way to educate their students is to invest in software programs should do more reasearch into what they are buying. I will reiterate - software cannont replace teachers, but there are programs and different types of technology that are better than others.
It seems that most of us agree that either digital divide refers to a lack of funding or a lack of professional expertise in specifically low-income school districts.
Teaching for Bridgeport Public Schools, I feel that there is a huge problem with both. Unlike many neighboring schools, we do not have smart boards in every classroom,working computers in every room or even computer labs in every school. However, we are also very poorly trained by the district to use the few pieces of technology that we do have.
I do agree that MacGillis believes that poor school districts do not use technology appropriately,but this too has a lot to do with funding. Perhaps it would be easier for such school districts to provide more meaningful technological experiences for their students if there were certified teachers in the area of technology that could implement such programs. However, this means that there must be funding available with which to hire such professionals.
It is all intertwined and unfortunately has been for a very long time. Hopefully the future will bring better solutions.
As far as the gender issue, I agree that teachers really needs to focus on each student's ability in regards to technology. Some girls and boys may need a different approach or strategy when it comes to learning various programs and software and their appropriate use. If they are equipped with the right tools, confidence, and a clear direction they will all be successful. Whether it's teaching a lesson or teaching a program, the same effort and respect of individual strengths and weaknesses needs to be taken into consideration and not the assumption that boys are just better at computers than girls.
Hello to all ...
A couple of things I wanted to say about the subject of equity issues, presented within Diane McGrath's and Alec MacGillis' articles. Perhaps I'll start with MacGillis' piece for this posting, and come back with my thoughts on McGrath's piece for the second posting.
First, I love the highlight towards the use of Inspiration, WebQuest, and Non-linear Powerpoint in her material. Clearly, Howard County and Silver Spring, MD, have created a distinction by using these platforms to more effectively integrate technology in the classroom. Of course, the measure and reference is the use of technology to simply generate drills, etc., such as those we see being used in the lower income districts. Very cool to know that we have had exposure to using and implementing these resources, as well.
Second, I think it is great that MacGillis stresses the notion of quality teaching and IT leadership to ensure good use of technology in the classroom. The example of "basic instruction programs" sitting on a computer room shelf is a picture that I'm sure all of us have seen.
Finally, I think the larger-scale issue surrounding the emphasis on standardized testing and "teaching to the tests" is a "lightning rod" point that each of us can fully appreciate as current/future educators ... and the idea that we can customize and craft technology to pull away from that mode of teaching and instruction is empowering.
Thoughts for now ....
Regards.
Mark
I think I will also take a minute to comment on McGrath's stance with respect to girls and technology education. Overall, I think she is right on target with the premise that to build educational equity and balance of opportunity for girls and boys in school, specific to technology education, there must be changes in the configuration of the learning environments and the approach of the teaching strategy. First, the project-based approach, where there is an effort to tailor the education to subjects and material that are interesting to the student, is the right path. In contrast to the traditional procedure-based approach, a project-based approach will definitely give all students a chance to personally connect with the material being presented.
I also think that it is time for teachers to actively look for ways to build collaboration into the classroom learning environment. As McGrath shows, the sharing of ideas and the inquiry into how others are approaching a task are a natural part of the learning process - for girls, and boys, I am sure.
Finally, I do think that the space of classrooms needs to be addressed so that the environment is established to more effectively learn. Social spaces is a strong idea.
Regards.
Mark
Regarding digital equity I am reminded of a book I recently finished. It is the latest installment by Op-Ed New York Times Columnist Thomas Friedman. I agree with his long term assessment that the world we live in is getting more crowded, flatter, meaning that access to all sorts of tools and opportunities exist like never before to vast amounts of the global population. It is due to this that I feel that the barriers and challenges to bridging the digital divide between the '0haves and have-nots' will diminish more and more this century. This includes the access to knowledge, education and technology for all people, male and female.
Post a Comment
<< Home