Technology+and+Equity+in+Schooling+Deconstructing+the+Digital+Divides

=Technology and Equity in Schooling: Deconstructing the= toc =Digital Divide= Author: Mark Warschauer, Michele Knobel, and Leeann Stone

Group Members: Amber Cantrell, Kelly O'Connell, Leah Erickson, Nicholas Dwald, Leslie Spainhower

=Research, Methods, and Findings= In order to assess the issue of inequality in education, specifically whether information and communication technology (ICT) alleviates or exacerbates these inequalities, this article reports on a qualitative study of access to technology in 8 California high schools in both low and high SES communities. The study explores how ICT was used to enhance students’ academic preparation in diverse socioeconomic contexts.

Research to date on this issue has mostly focused on gaps in computer access and computer distribution between high and low SES schools. But in recent years these gaps have been and are continuing to narrow so this study seeks to use a larger scope to broaden and deepen our understanding of equity in schooling as regards technology.

The study sought to investigate the availability of, access to, and use of technology within selected California high schools and “variation among these dimensions by school community, and student population in relation to students’ academic preparation for entry into universities.”

The research reported was a qualitative survey that gathered data from 64 classrooms, in 8 schools over a 7 month period in the 2001-2002 school year.

This chart shows computer and internet availability in the surveyed schools.

The study found three overall patterns of technology access that they termed performativity, workability, and complexity.

=Performativity=

The article discusses that one of the problems that leads to a gap in technology is the focus of performativity by teachers. Rather than focusing on the genuine learning and understanding of the students, teachers instead focus on the simple accomplishment of the task, “checking a box” in a way. Completion of technology task was seen as an end in itself by many teachers.

**Example from a low-SES school**: Students were to complete an internet-based research assignment. To complete the assignment, students simply entered the name of the country they were researching into the internet search engine, chose the first search return, and copied and pasted the information onto a Word document. Although students were performing the task of selecting material from the web, they were not developing any high-level cognitive skills.

**Example from high-SES school:** A science teacher assigned a powerpoint project that was to be graded on how many font types, sounds, and slide transitions it contained. Rather than focusing on if the student can create an effective presentation, students instead were tested on their ability to use PowerPoint’s features.

Performativity is more commonly seen as a problem in low-SES schools where basic computer skills tend to be more focused on as it is more commonly assumed that not all students have access to computers at home.

=Workability=



The second concern of technology is workability, or more specifically the extent to which teachers, administrators and students have the ability to access and easily use existing digital networks for teaching and learning purposes. Issues that arise with regards to workability concern the dependability of new technologies to work when they are needed to. The problem is that teachers can not use something if they cannot rely on it and these new technologies often double a teacher’s workload because they have to develop a back-up plan and materials in case the network is down or the websites can not be accessed.

Although workability issues were found throughout this study, there seemed to be distinct differences between how these issues played out in low-SES and high-SES schools. For example, in Dalea high school, one of the high-SES schools in the study, the school administration invested more time in professional development and hiring technical support staff to promote more digital use. While Bergenia High School, a low-SES school, had achieved less success in creating the same sort of support networks that made technology workable.

The result in Dalea was that the school staff seemed more comfortable taking chances and branching out when it came to technology because they had support to back them up should anything go awry. But at Bergenia, the staff experienced much greater difficulty in implementing new technology because there was poor communication between school staff members. In general, the high-SES schools demonstrated smoother computer management and support throughout the school, thus leading to fewer problems when working with technology.

=Complexity= According to the authors, “even in situations in when the machines were accessible and useable many teachers still found it a complex undertaking to actually integrate computers in their teaching.” Several observations were attributed to this: In short, teachers were unsure how to really amplify the use of technology and make it relevant in their teachings as they grappled with the pressure to improve on high stakes tests, as well as perceived gaps between low SES and high SES student populations. Finally many teachers were not sure how to use technology with ELL students.
 * High Stakes Testing: ** Teachers are often pressured to teach to the test. Emphasis goes to test preparation instead of new technology or teaching how to use the technology at hand. Emphasis is placed at the school raising their Academic Performance Index, and not necessarily fomenting technological readiness.
 * Differential home computer access: ** In high SES schools “99% had access to computers…97% had internet home access” vs in low SES schools “87% had access to computers…72% had internet home access". In low SES schools teachers underestimated home access to computers, and thus would assign less computer related assignments. Therefore lower SES school students would have less computer based homework, and thus less theoretical time on the computer.
 * English Language Learners: ** Low SES schools had roughly “30% English language learners, or roughly three times the percentage in the high-SES schools, and many classes in the low-SES schools included students of mixed English language ability. This complicated all aspects of schooling, including technology use.” Further many teachers without technology were ill-equipped to meet the needs of their students. Some teachers preferred that ELL students not use computers, as they believed that word processor edits interfered with an ELL ability to develop grammar and spelling.

Often while the hardware works great, and even if the operating system is outdated "old" computers can still work great and can be used for task like typing, using powerpoint and excel.

=Discussion and Conclusions=

Lastly, the study discusses the idea that the digital divide is not a singular concept concerning access to computers and the Internet, but rather, an amalgam of factors within a social context- economic, cultural, geographic, and linguistic. Warschauer et al. assert that in addition to providing low income schools with ample computers and access to the Internet, it is important to consider how technology will function in the social context of the school. Questions must be asked like will the computers be used for vocational instruction, remedial learning, or advanced skill acquisition?

To bridge the digital divide, well-trained and experienced teachers who will instruct students how to use technology for scholarship and research are needed. Educators must not make assumptions about what their students are capable of learning or about their students’ access to technology. The focus must be taken away from learning how to use software. In all schools, whether low or high SES, with or without many ELL students, educators must ensure that every student can access computers and the Internet, be it at home, at the library, at a community center, or through a school-based check-out system. Fortunately, the divide in access is tapering, but it is essential that educators and policy makers continue to advocate for equitable funding for technology and refrain from pigeonholing students’ technological abilities based on their socio-economic status. ==

=Article Cited= Warschauer, Mark, Knobel, Michele, and Stone, Leeann, “Technology and Equity in Schooling: Deconstructing the Digital Divide.” Educational Policy, (18)4, 2004 pp. 562-588.