Digital Equity - Monday section
For Monday 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 @ 11/10/2009 06:34:00 PM
31 Comments:
I found this article to be very interesting and it touched a nerve. I grew up and worked in a poor neighborhood and know what it’s like to have outdated textbooks, and insufficient supplies, and materials. So in the 21st century, I was pleased to see, in my old neighborhood schools, the progression of closing the digital divide with students having access to computers. I thought this was a step in the right direction. Well as the article “Law, Software Fuel New “Digital Divide” states the No Child Left Behind policy is creating a new “digital divide”. Now that students have access to technology, they are not using the technology to promote higher-order thinking. This is really sad. And I agree with it. I have witnessed this “drill and kill” practice with remedial software.
My school currently has Compass and Lexia. The principal is now trying to get Study Island. I have seen students sit in front of the computer screen and choose answers until they got the right answer. I’ve seen Kindergarteners working with the Lexia program do the same thing! These little five year olds sit in front of the computer screen with headphones on and are asked to answer a question that they may not necessarily understand. For example, there was a question about how many sounds are in the word ‘table’. The student had to move the lollipop down for each sound heard. Now, the problem with this is that the student has to know what the word is and understand the concept of ‘how many sounds’. The student didn’t know the word. I told her and then she just guessed how many sounds she heard – three. She just clicked on the lollipops until she got the answer correct. I only had to observe and not help. The program just accelerates. So a student can’t go back to review the “learned skill”. The program just moves on. How is this helping the student???
As I have stated in previous blog postings, with the advancement of technology, there is also a detachment of human interaction that is very frightening. In the example given in the article where the students are in the Compass lab the teacher comments, “I enjoy it. It gives us [teacher] a break during the day. It’s a little down-time. It gives the kids a chance to work independently”. How sad is this? So now the computer is the substitute for the teacher. Where is the human connection, caring, and response that the student needs in order to learn? I don’t see anything wrong with remedial software as a review. But the teacher has to be on hand to help students that don’t understand the concept and differentiate instruction for those students. School policies, laws, administrators, and teachers need to address and invest in the needs of the people [students]!!!
- Kim
I agreed with the article “Law, Software Fuel New “Digital Divide”. There is a divide among students when it comes to technology. The most disturbing comment I found was: “I enjoy it. It gives us [teacher] a break during the day. It’s a little down-time. It gives the kids a chance to work independently”. How very sad that a teacher would say this.
I have seen schools use this type of software. In fact a teacher friend of mine visited a kindergarten class this week in another school. When she came back she told us how K-3 students were using a new 'reading' program that catered to low level students. (this school mostly minority and ESL) She said the program was aweful! The kindergarten teacher let the students listen to a program and she sat back and did nothing!
I had never really thought about the inequality of technology use before reading this article. I agree with Kim. How is this helping the students??
As Kim and Kathy both commented, I was also very bothered by the teacher's comment regarding the Compass program her students were using. She stated, “I enjoy it. It gives us [teachers] a break during the day. It’s a little down-time. It gives the kids a chance to work independently”. This comment makes her seem like she is not invested in her students' education; either that or she is exhausted because it may be overwhelming to teach students who clearly have several needs. I also think it is abhorent of software companies to take advantage of such districts. I realize it is a business; however, I feel like the companies are preying on the weak. In contrast, I am confused by how those same districts think that rote learning software is a better investment than good teachers. That does not make sense to me.
I am one of the lucky ones though. We do not have need of much in my district. We briefly tried the Blue Ribbon software (and I mean briefly), but it was clearly faulty and we ceased implementation of it. We instead rely on integrating technologies into our curriculums that will promote higher level thinking skills. We also reinforce the test taking skills they will need to succeed on the state tests by integrating those strategies as well.
My question is that if this new digital divide is caused by No Child Left Behind, why are we not doing something to change it? Should we also not look at the struggling districts and try to help them improve their teaching practices? I do not mean to imply I know much about what it would take to help more districts succeed, but I do think we need to ban together as educators and help one another.
The article "Law, software fuel new 'digital divide'" was very interesting and also very sad. It's sad to me that children from lower income school districts are being taught by rote computer programs instead of being taught by a caring teacher. Their creativity, time to learn, their thoughts, and their rights to individualized attention are all being stifled. I found it horrible when the teacher from the Camden district said that she really likes the Compass program because "It gives us a break during the day. It’s a little down-time. It gives the kids a chance to work independently." What a lazy teacher, she shouldn't be teaching in the first place with that attitude.
While the students might be scoring higher on standardized tests with that software, what happens when the software is no longer available to them? Their test scores will likely go down. These kids are being taught to memorize, not to learn or understand. The problem of the low test scores isn't being fixed by Compass, it's just receiving a temporary fix- a band aid. Once the band aid is removed, the problem will still be there because it wasn't properly fixed in the first place.
While I am all for the integration of technology in the classroom, I am definitely not for technology serving as replacement for a teacher in the classroom. Children need the care of a teacher to learn, not the "consistency" of a computer program.
I don't at all this computer programs should be a substitute for a teacher, but I don't see why such programs can't be an added tool in school curriculum's. I think it by having fun video game type computer programs where students can play a virtual form of baseball on the computer and learn at the same time..why not? It shouldn't matter how they are learning as long as they are learning. But like I said - programs such as that should be an extension of what the teacher has already taught and a way for the student to test and apply what they have learned.
It's unanimous so far. I was disturbed, just as the previous authors have posted, by the teacher's egregious remark about her having some "down-time" while her students, her major responsibilities, were being neglected of the proper HUMAN attention that they all deserve. Sure, I agree that the integration of technology is very important in our school systems, but not if apathetic teachers are not willing to do their part. To quote Susan D. Patrick from the article, "'There's no substitute for quality teaching. The foundation for any technology is what teacher is behind it.'" Again, I share the same feelings of sadness and frustration as the other bloggers have shared after reading this article. The 'digital divide' is unfortunately intensifying, and not alleviating, the achievement gap between poor and rich students.
I have to agree with the previous posts. The article was highly disturbing and the fact that teachers think it's ok to sit back and relax during class is not normal. No child left behind is forcing schools to look at ways to improve test scores - these computer programs seem like an easy and quick fix for a school system that is obviously not working. I think that it's highly inappropriate to compare computer programs with teachers. Teachers bring the "human aspect" to the class, and yes, they do have bad days, but that's life.
As with everyone else’s response to the article “Law, software fuel new “digital divide”, I too find what was said to be extremely disturbing. While I think that technology is very important to incorporate in to the classroom, in no way should it serve as a replacement for a teacher. I found Sharae Huff’s statement about how “it gives us (teachers) a break during the day. It’s a little down time,” to be very sad. As teachers, it should be our job to invest in each of our students one hundred percent to really help them succeed to the best of their ability. We should be dedicating as much time and effort it takes for our students to achieve- not just sitting them in front of a computer while we put our feet up in the back of the classroom.
And while the students are scoring higher scores on standardized testing, what are the chances that they actually understand what they are doing? Programs such as Compass Learning are just teaching our students to memorize, not to take time during the learning process to really understand what is being taught.
So many teachers say that they do test prep by infusing the concepts into the regular curriculum. If Camden invested the $8 million into the quality of teachers they hire, I'm sure they would see a vast improvement on test scores. A good friend of mine teachers in Camden and she buys school supplies for her students (at a Catholic school) because they cannot afford to do so themselves. Children cannot be successful without the necessary tools, ie: the basics! While technology is important, the schools should focus on being up to par with their faculty and other resources before investing in test taking software.
In one of the other articles, the author stated that girls want the same thing from their studies that we hope all students want...understanding. We all agree that putting students in front of a computer to play mindles games does not work or is just a temporary cure. Teachers need to help students understand. However, we do not know the whole picture- what else these school districts have tried.
In McGrath's article "Closing the Gender Gap" She talks about how girls typically do not like working with or using the computer, as much as boys do. This would also included playing video games, thus girls not liking using the computer as a learning tool would make sense seeing many of the ways in which computers have been used to teach is through video game like activities that "drill and kill". This maybe due to the fact that females seem to flourish in learning environments that foster creativity and open-ended type learning, and tradition ways of using the computer for learning in schools is very closed. So you may ask if we as teacher design a lesson using technologies that our female students can excel at are we putting the male students at the same disadvantages that our female students have traditionally been in? The answer according to McGrath is no. Her studies find that when the lessons are made and taught in an open-ended project based approach, there is no significant difference in male and female achievement and the achievement of both groups is significantly higher than it would have been if taught in a traditional procedural approach.
What does all this mean for me as someone who will be a teacher one day? Well, the easy, answer is use computers in my classroom as creatively as possible, make my lessons project based. This sound easy enough, but like many things in life this could be easier said than done. We live in a time when teachers are not only being asked to teach more information than ever, there are mountains of paper work, dozens of phone calls and more students in classrooms than ever. There is only so much time in a day and to make ever single lesson new and original, and do everything that is asked of us might actually be close to impossible, however, teachers are being encouraged to work in teams and plan and make lessons together and this maybe one of the best tools for integrating all these new ideas into our classes. There are also many wonderful resources on the Internet, to help with lessons.
I thought that McGrath’s article “Closing the Gender Gap” was very interesting. I had always thought about why it appeared to be that boys were more involved and interested in technology than girls were, but now I understand that it partly has to do with the type of learning environment that they are working in. Females seem to do really well in environments that foster creativity, and the way students are learning to use the computer today doesn’t really take that in to consideration- which leads to the idea that females just don’t like using computers / technology, when really, teachers just need to find a way to engage all students deeply and really listen to their issues and ideas. As teachers, we should be working hard on lessons and activities based on the open-ended project approach because then the males and the females will have the same chances of not only succeeding, but also really enjoying the use of technology in the classroom.
I found Diane McGrath's article "Closing the Gender Gap" to be interesting and it made me think about my own experiences as a female student. Particularly when I was reading the PBL, Girls, and Math section of the article, I thought of my personal struggles when I was learning mathematics as a younger student. Perhaps it was not the subject area of math that I was having trouble with, instead, it could have been the traditional method of teaching in which I learned, as McGrath suggests. This idea of traditional teaching also ties into female students and technology. The problem may not be the actual use of technology in learning, but the problem may lie within how the technology is used. I found it interesting to read that girls were more likely than boys to collaborate with each other on a project, so the solution would be to have an open option for both boys and girls to work as they please.
Similar to Nina's post, I was also wondering if my own struggles with Math were due to the type of instruction I received. I think that subjects such as Math and Science have for a long time been instructed through a traditional method, whereas other subjected adapted new methods earlier. The McGrath article also suggests that students have to become more deeply involved with technology in order to enhance their understanding. I think this is true for all subjects. Personally, if I think back on my days in high and elementary school, I most remember the material where I truly had to understand what I was learning, not just memorizing it!
Diane McGrath's article "Closing the Gender Gap" was an interesting read that really made me think about my relationship with technology as a female as compared to my boyfriend's relationship with technology. I struggle when learning how to use different technological programs, like photoshop or the windows movie maker. I found myself extremely frustrated when digitally manipulating photos on photoshop and when trying over and over again to add music to my digital story over my narration. On the other hand, my boyfriend uses photoshop and Adobe Illustrator all the time for creating pamphlets, proposal, signs, flyers, etc for work. He works through it carefully and patiently and has great success with such programs. Why the difference? This article made me realize that maybe the difference really does lie in the different learning styles of males and females and the different learning environments in which the genders flourish. I am a more open, collaborative, creative learner and like explanations and like to understand what it is I'm learning. While my boyfriend is very creative, I think he is a procedural and hand on learner which is probably why he works so well with technology.
As far as the article "Law, Software Fuel New "Digital Divide", I agree that technology is a useful tool for kids especially in this technological era. Just because students come from a lower income area doesn't mean that should be limited to thier educational resources. However, I find it discouraging that teacher's would feel like a computer would provide them with down time so they don't have to teach. I find myself barely being able to eat my lunch most days and I can't seem to find enough time in my day to work with my students.I haven't heard of the Compass program, but most educational software is pretty useful, I think it just has to be used at an appropriate time, and not as a substitute for the real thing!
Kathy's comment,
“I enjoy it. It gives us [teacher] a break during the day. It’s a little down-time. It gives the kids a chance to work independently”. How very sad that a teacher would say this.
Response:
I have seen many people view technology in this way. It is unfortunate but I think to some extent it is systemic. School systems always want to be as technologically current as possible and not ask critical questions like "does this support our overall unit or course objectives" For instance, schools love to have access to multimedia tools. Therefore, many school districts subscribe to discovery's United streaming. I don't know whether or not they truly analyze the quality of the content. I don't think that they should assume everything is of exceptional quality. This constant need for change gets us further away from the inquiry model and developing questions that are worth answering.
I also have found that technology is to some extent segregating the affluent from the not so affluent. Affluent students have their own online file access while poorer students many not even have flash drives. When I taught in Vermont it was clear how the technology divided those that lived in rural areas to those that lived in town. I know of some states that have tried to combat this digital divide by providing students with laptops. Maine gave all 6th graders in the state laptops and the program was successful. However, current economic pressures have made ideas like Maine’s financially impossible.
“It’s good for business” Capitalism and education
I’m a history guy (full disclosure) so I find it interesting how much corporate interest there is in education and how that interest dramatically affects what ends up in the classroom. We have seen what happens when other large industries, like the pharmaceutical interests, get upset with people or government policy. The power of these industries was first evident to me when I went to NYC and saw the huge book company skyscrapers. Indeed, they have stock holders that they need to please and that may not always be in the kids best interests. I am all for valuable educational software but I have some questions. Furthermore, who creates software like compass? Have these designers ever been in a classroom? Do they provide proper and useful teacher support? I think the conversation needs to be shifted into a different direction.
I believe that the government at the state or federal level needs to create an effective digital tracking system for each individual student, so teachers and administrators can make data driven decisions. I think that no child left behind initially tried to scratch the surface of this issue and attempted to make schools accountable for their actions. However, the teachers argued effectively that standardized tests are poor ways to access learning. Certain software should be provided to school districts no matter their economic situation. Our current secretary of education would agree with my argument. I think we as a nation in crisis, in the near future, will have to deal with other pressing issues like a 220+ days school year and a eight hour school day.
After reading some of the posts I totally relate to having a math disability. It is the only subject I struggle with, and I had horrible math teachers in middle and high school. I actually had to take math at the community college to pass it for my highschool diploma. I wonder if the instructional techniques were different I would have had an easier time learning and understanding math. Using a compouter based program was not an option for me where I grew up, but I bet if I were a student today in middleschool I would get alot more out of my education due to all of the technological resources and the way teachers have to teach to the different levels in their classes. Education is not as concrete as it used to be.
I agree with the comments below that it is a bit alarming for a teacher to mention that technology allows her to have a bit of a break during the day -- I would hope that at the very least while her students are working independantly she is still walking around monitoring progress, answering questions etc.
While I am not condoning teachers using the computer lab time as free time for themselves, but many teachers do not get any prep time during the day. They might be using that time to plan. Just playing devils advocate :)
I think it is disturbing that technology programs are used to merely prepare students for standardized tests. Basically, we are just teaching for the tests and we should really be teaching for life. We need to teach our students higher order thinking and not just have them learn in order to raise test scores.
In response to Carolyn's comment, I agree that it is not good to use technology only in preparation for standardized tests. However, I have see the blue ribbon tests used to assess students progress throughout the year in math (the reading program was not effective). They took the blue ribbon teast for their grade level as a pre test, midway through the year, and at the end so that they teacher could track their progress, and see which areas he students needed he most help in. Taking this test on the computers was in a way preparing them for the CMT's, but it was also being used as a useful form of assessment for the classroom teacher so se could see what areas her students needed the most help in. I do agree however that this should certainly not be the only form of technology being used, and that it is very important to use technology in many different ways, and provide real life scenarios for the students.
I think this all goes back to knowing who our students are to be effective teachers! I agree with Aaron’s comments about corporate interests and education. This goes back to what’s printed (or not) in textbooks. Who knew that education was big business? No textbook, computer program, or next “new thing” is going to take the place of how we are as teachers and knowing what our students need. Instead of teaching to the test, we need to focus on how students learn and make the necessary accommodations to fit their needs. So that no one is literally left behind.
As a substitute teacher working for various school districts including Meriden, Hamden, Stratford, Norwalk, Branford and Ansonia, I have noticed the disparity in the access of technology including hardware and "effective" software items at the schools. By reading the article, "law, software fuel new "digital divide", I agree with most others in this blog that even though it is important to have sufficient and effective technology products in schools, technology altogether cannot replace or compensate for student-teacher interaction! A technology magnet school in Meriden, CT that I sometimes sub at, provides 1 laptop per student. But, it actually has a great balance of teacher student interaction and student technology usage either while a teacher is instructing or when the student is doing independent work on their laptop.
Mcgrath's "Closing the Gender Gap" article had some interesting information about why girls did not perform as well as boys in Math from the study done at a high school and why girls used less technology than boys in another study done with 5th grade boys and girls participation in traditional, constancy, and enriching activities.
The reason given for lower performance in Math was that the traditional method of teaching was not helping girls learn as well. the one size fits all method of teaching only caters to or may benefit some students whereas it doesn't benefit others like for example students with special needs, ESL students etc..
I also liked that the teachers found a solution to help make the gender gap smaller in the study done about the participation of boys and girls in the activities. They had come up with many solutions to help get both boys and girls equally involved in all activities like for example when they had group meetings addressing challenges they faced, computer schedules,they had opened up the labs and had the kids use notebooks to record their ideas. This article made me think about the differences that not only girls and boys have but also the diverse groups of students present in the school systems in the United States. I believe that it is very important for schools to consider the diversity that we have in the United States and to provide individualized, progressive methods of teaching. And to effectively teach all students and not just the select few that benefit from traditional methods of teaching.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree with much that has been said here. In my own personal experience, computer programs can be great learning tools. I remember spending hours on a "learn to type" program on my first computer. In that case, I had motivation to learn and did this at my own accord and at my own pace. This program however reinforced what I learned in a typing class in school. It certainly was not a replacement for the teacher, but a supplement. Teachers need to be careful to use computer programs that reinforce classroom learning goals, and that they can produce measureable results. Computers are certainly not meant to be used as a break time for the teacher. They must be used to enrich the students learning by giving the student real world scenarios in which to practice learned skills. If the teacher notices that a student is straying from the learning objectives, then it is their responsibility to take corrective action.
The way technology is used is directly related to the training teachers recieve. In less fortunate school districts, funding for training may be limited, and professional development may not focus most effectively on using specific programs as there may be too many. Politicians and school administrators grew up in most cases with limited access to technology in education, and have misconceptions regarding its use. Politicians love to boast how they improved the student-computer ratio and student management systems take the majority of focus and attention because it directly impacts the administration of the school. However, teachers are shut out of much of the decision making process regarding what is available, what they think they could use, and training for what is purchased.
I believe that the philosophy of the administration is directly related to the level of training the administrator has in technology in the classroom and how effectively that administrator can sell it to data driven politicians.
I worked in an elementary school last year that really "taught to the test" in order to get passing scores. The students all spent time on Study Island and another similar program. One thing that was good is that the program created a report for the teacher. The teacher then used that information to provide really good review work specialise for the student's needs. Every 8th day was a review day and extra people would be in teh classroom to run the small group work for the students.
The study, Closing the Gender Gap by Diane McGrath, looks into the different ways boys and girls use technology. I found this information to be a very important. As an educator, one must teach in a way that engages both the male and female students in one's class. This study shows that girls can be just as engaged in technology as boys when provided with the right setting. The author suggest PBL, Project Based Learning. By using a project based approach, the differences betewwn girls and boys technologicl performances is made equal. Girls need to feel connected in understanding their learning. PBL allows for this.
The study, Closing the Gender Gap by Diane McGrath, looks into the different ways boys and girls use technology. I found this information to be a very important. As an educator, one must teach in a way that engages both the male and female students in one's class. This study shows that girls can be just as engaged in technology as boys when provided with the right setting. The author suggest PBL, Project Based Learning. By using a project based approach, the differences betewwn girls and boys technologicl performances is made equal. Girls need to feel connected in understanding their learning. PBL allows for this.
Post a Comment
<< Home