K Bechtel

Educational settings can do many things do address the issues found in the article Silicon Ceilings: Information Technology Equity, the Digital Divide and the Gender Gap among Information Technology Professionalsby Andrea M Matwyshhn.  This article describes how the digital divide among men and women is prevalent and growing not only in terms of access to consumers of information technology but also in terms of access to producers of information technology.  The following list gives suggestions as to what schools can do to close this gap:

• instruction and exposure to information technology at an early age (prior to junior high and high school)
• employ more women as computer educators to act as role models to girls
• stimulate more girls to take computer science classes by developing a curriculum that pays attention to the different learning styles
• employ tech savvy teachers that will expose students to technology use in the classroom
• educate girls on the possible work related jobs in the area of computer science
• use single-sex schools or classrooms where socially constructed stereotypes can be broken and girls can have equal access and time to use computers; this also promotes girls having positive attitudes towards computer science
• train teachers to be aware of group processes and dynamics and how these may impact girls
• provide networks for females to connect with each other
• use a hands-on approach to the technology curriculum
• get parents involved
• personally invite girls to take technology classes
• offer additional lab time for students to practice
• create partnerships between high schools, community colleges, and businesses that would support internships and certification programs

These are suggestions that would address the gender issues surrounding technology equity in educational settings.

The effect of technology on a culture can clearly be seen when looking at the young people of that culture.  What we do, how we do it, and how we communicate is greatly impacted by technology.  Danah Boyd described technology has being fluid with the youth she studied.  I guess I would compare technology has being a rocky hillside to many of the adults in our culture!  As she said in her interview, teens do not see technology like IM as an interruption.  On the other hand, a phone call would be seen as such.  For example, my niece is much more apt to talk with her friends on the computer rather than by phone, unless of course she is texting them!  Conversely, she only contacts me by phone (cause she knows that’s how I can be reached!)  Likewise look at all the businesses, like coffee houses and restaurants, making access available to their customers.  People are always available today (and want to be) via technology.

Another analogy Ms. Boyd gave in the interview that really speaks to where we as a culture are heading is how as children, our parents would send us out to play with instructions to return home by dark.  I would go play with all the neighbor kids around my block and as I got older, I could hang out as far as two or three blocks away from home.  Parents today do not do that anymore out of fear.  The equivalent to kids going to hang out after school is the social networking sites.  Teens and even younger kids go “hang out” in places such as My Space and Facebook with their group of friends.    Of course adults go hang at these places as well, but their intended audience was college kids and that has trickled down to teenagers and younger kids.  Like the Hula Hoop when most kids could do it better than their parents, I think the social networking sites like My Space are used more easily by kids.

So my future, being directed by those youngsters that fill the seats in my classroom today, will bring new ways of doing a whole lot of things.  Communication, entertainment, education, job opportunities, and medicine will be greatly influenced by technology…technology we don’t even know about yet.  We technology natives must learn to embrace it rather than resist it.

Digital technology certainly improves the level of equity in so many different aspects.  First of all, technology completely removes any or all barriers to accessing people and places that can complement any student’s learning experience.  For example, when studying a unit on the solar system, students can talk to a real live astronaut.  When doing math homework at home, students can access live help with any number of math help sites.  When learning to speak another language, students can partner up with another student whose native language is the same one they are studying.  This goes back to the discussion we had about the “thin walled classrooms”.  Technology is making the world smaller and in turn, making students think about their own being as part of a global society.  Education is no longer what happens in our classrooms, but is provided and readily available to anyone at anytime.  That is anyone with access.  Which brings me to how technology hampers the level of equity.

The digital divide can be explained in two parts:  those with access and those without as well as opportunities provided via technology that create or impede the learning process.  Let’s first look at those without access.  This certainly hampers the level of equity.  Students without access at home certainly cannot take advantage of opportunities afforded to them if they had access.  They would not be part of that educational network and their learning would be confined to the classroom.  I would also mention schools that do not have access here, but research shows that nearly 99% of all schools are wired for technology access (http://www.ericdigests.org/2005-2/reflection.html).    So that point is irrelevant, unless we widen our discussion to education outside of the U.S. 

Now let’s look at those missed opportunities.  I’m talking about resources here, and yes, I’m including teachers.  Students in classrooms with technological savvy teachers are at an advantage over students of teachers that use very little or no technology as part of their instructional methods.  They are seeing technology in use, have access to it, made aware of the capabilities, and lowering their inhibitions with technology use.  These teachers are considered to be in the reaffirmation or rejection stage of technology adoption according to L. Sherry (http://thejournal.com/articles/14594).   Now I didn’t say their achievement level was higher or lower than students in a classroom that uses little or no technology.   I’m not really sure if there is research to support either of these judgements.  However, students in the low technology use classrooms are not seeing the benefits of technology, the opportunities created with technology, or improving their own skills at using technology.  Teachers in those classrooms are considered to be in the learning or adopting stage of development.  Two classes next door to each other could be providing their students vastly different educational opportunities depending solely on the level of technology experience knowledge of the teachers.  Thus the divide continues.  This may or may not be due to factors outside the control of the student.  Students in both classes may have the same levels of diversity in terms of gender, race, background, language, etc. but the differences in educational opportunities provided by information and communication technologies is determined by the comfort level and experience with technology of the teacher.  Which classroom would you want your child to be in?

When we think about the lack of technology adoption among different groups of people, you should be reminded of the groups own experience with technology.  Technology is not used among people for many different reasons including low motivation because they see no benefit from doing so, lack of interest, lack of affordability, lack of knowledge and experience with technology, insecure and uncomfortable about the uses of technology, and lack of support (http://www.rockresearch.com/success_pubart_ntrs.php).  Many of these reasons among adults for not using technology could be avoided if students are in classrooms where technology is being used.

There are several important factors to consider when assessing educational equity.  Those factors include the social context, the economic context, the political context, and the educational reform context.  Let’s consider each of these factors individually and their implications on the assessment of equity.

Social Context-How does the community perceive the role of the school?  There are two vastly different views on the purpose of a school.  Some may believe that schools are the few, if not only places where all are created equal.  With hard work and a good attitude, a school can help make your dreams a reality.  Equal opportunities exist for all.  More importantly, the school is the provider of knowledge and skills to make anyone a positive contributor to our society.  Remember, we are operating under the law of “No Child Left Behind”.  On the other hand, some may see schools as a control agent that reflects the social inequities that already exist in our communities.  The idea of a track system comes to mind, where we allow some students to take a college prep line-up of courses, others take a general track of courses, and then some make up the vocational track.  It is in this system that students are predestined to a particular group or class in our society.  Knowing which perception the community has on a school will help guide an assessment’s data collection and interpretations.

Economic Context-How are schools funded?  Kentucky is a state that has been in the forefront across the country in school reform.  One of the issues with this school reform is school funding.  The SEEK formula was designed to make school funding equitable across the state.  So why is that some schools are still under-resourced and others are fully resourced?  According to the author, the disparities found in income among races and gender parallels the differences found in the type of access and technology services provided to students in these same groups.  I found the same type of disparity in research conducted to see the difference in technology use and adoption among whites, African Americans, and Latinos (http://www.rockresearch.com/success_pubart_ntrs.php).  Therefore, researchers must take this relationship between school funding and student achievement into account when assessing programs or services.

Political Context-Why are some personal attributes advantageous for some and barriers for others?  Who makes the decisions in your community that promotes giving some people an opportunity while others are never regarded?  I think of the age old question, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”  Do political, social, and economic inequities among diverse populations cause similar inequities in schools or do the inequities found in schools feed the gaps that already exist in our communities?  Researchers must look at the political influence in a community that would encourage or impede technology use in the school.  This political influence could encourage the use of technology, but at the same time, give certain populations of students an advantage over others, e.g., students with access at home to students with no home access.

Educational Reform Context-Where does information and communication technologies fit into the school reform effort?  These technologies can support the curriculum, teaching methods, collaboration, school organization and management, communications, and assessment.  These type of changes trickle down from national, state, district, and classroom levels.  Researchers must look at how these changes from school reform happen at each of these different levels.  A look at how these technologies are incorporated (or not) into the school reform plan should also be considered when assessing equity.

I think one of the main implications on education of The Law of Fives is the fact that being connected to one another is so unique, so powerful, and so rewarding.  This is a comment that I’ve read over the past few weeks on other’s blogs and seems to be the theme so far for the course.  I must admit I wasn’t a believer of this prior to the readings and discussions we’ve had, actually I really had never thought about the awesome potential of a network.  It certainly seems to me that networking is here and now and the future.  For educators, networking is another tool to use in the classroom.  I used to think of networking in terms of teachers talking to get new ideas and become better teachers.  Now I think of networking and think of students becoming better students.  When I say better, I mean smarter, global, and connected.  Networking changes your perspective.  In the article, he wrote “my wellness becomes a quality of my network.”  Will my education also become a product of my network?  On the down side though, I think the Mob Rules can negatively impact educational equity.  The Mob is considered this large group of people, but what about those not included in this number.  How will they have a fair chance to compete with the mob? 

Is equity possible?   I suppose in a perfect world equity is possible.  In my earlier post, I suggested that equity is synonymous with fairness.  So to change the question around a bit, is fairness possible.  I have been told, “Life isn’t fair,” and I may even be guilty of telling others that same line a time or two.  I think at some point in time everyone has felt like they have been treated unfairly by someone.  So I really don’t believe equity is possible.

Is equity desireable?  Certainly.  I think everyone wants to be treated fairly and is entitled to that.  However, what I believe to be fair and what you believe to be fair may or may not be in alignment.  This is why I believe the issue of equity is subjective not objective. 

How does equity relate to NCLB?  I think the mere name of this law implies that at some time in the past there have been children left, dropped, or ignored by our educational system.  I also believe that it implies it’s not the majority of children.  If it were the majority of children being left behind, the name of the law would be different.  It means to me that one child failing is too many.  One novice performance is one too many.  So equity is what NCLB is about.  Regardless of your gender, race, ethnic background, disability, or free or reduced lunch status, you will have the opportunity to gain an education that is fair in terms of access, instruction, assessment, materials, and attitudes.  For example, a sub-group we look at closely at my school are students with disabilities.  This isn’t the majority of my students but a small percentage.  We are working to make the curriculum more accessible to this group of students given their needs to they can be successful in learning it. 

In researching equity, I find many articles looking at equity from various perspectives.  I have read articles regarding school finance, school funding, resources, gender, SES, and race.  There are also a number of laws regarding equity in education including Title IX, IDEA, and NCLB.  To begin let me define equity in my own words.

I begin school each year with my fifth grade students with a discussion of the difference between equity and equal.  (This same “talk” was given to me by a teacher and it stuck with me.)  At some point during the first few days of school I try to explain to students why I do the things I do in my classroom.  I provide an analogy of a car accident.  The three people in the accident had various injuries.  Upon arriving at the scene, the EMT’s must decide what actions would be equitable given the situation.  Let’s say one victim is unconscious and bleeding badly, another victim is conscious but appears to have a broken leg, and yet the third victim is  crying and shaken from the accident but appears to only have some bumps and bruises.  To treat each of these victims equal would be to give them the same treatment which of course is ridiculous.  To treat each of them in the way that best fits their needs at the given time is what all of us would expect.  That to me is equity.  I may give more attention to one person right now because that person needs that attention.  Equality is treating everyone the same while equity is treating everyone fairly.

I read information provided by the Region X Equity Assistance Center located at the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL) in Portland, Oregon (http://www.nwrel.org/cnorse/)  While perusing their site I found what they called the “Key Components of Educational Equity” (http://www.nwrel.org/cnorse/booklets/training/KeyComponents.html)  which includes access, instruction, materials, attitudes, interactions, language, and assessment.   This site defines each of these components and offers ways to promote an equitable educational environment.  It’s worth a look.  For me the first three components are largely mandated by the district, however the last four components are largely mandated by the type of people employed by our districts.   In other words, equity in the classroom is in large part subjective to the teacher’s beliefs, biases, and attitudes towards diversity.

Something to remember about equity is that it occurs when an underrepresented population is being treated unfairly.  When you look at the Title IX law, it protects females from being discriminated against but does not offer the same protection for males (”No Boys Allowed”, Principal Leadership, April, 2007). 

After reading Chapter 9 and discussing it (with whoever was willing), I have determined that the gender divide is something that is not necessarily a bad thing.  I do what I do because its natural for me to do so.  When comparing myself to my husband, we both use the computer for different reasons.  He programs it, uses it to find a solution, builds things with it, etc.  (I say “things” because I really don’t understand the true scope of his use of the computer!)  I use it to talk to other people, make my job easier, and do specific functions relevant to me.  This is exactly what the research has shown as presented in Ch. 9.  I think these differences are certainly a result of our upbringing, our education, and our society, but I think these differences make us individuals.  I don’t program computers because I don’t think that is something that would be rewarding or beneficial to me not because I was raised thinking it was a man’s job.  Telling girls they can’t do something because they’re girls is not fair.  Women deciding what they want to do given their abilities and interests is perfectly fine.

So what does this book have to do with education?  I’m not quite ready to go there yet…let me work through what I got from it.  I think it is telling businesses that the Internet is making consumers smarter.  Actually it is saying that consumers are human and we are made stronger through our connection to other humans.  No longer can we be like robots and ordered around by businesses.  Businesses can’t decide what we need or what will make us feel better.  The global human connection can help us know what we want and empower us.

The days of marketing surveys are over.  When companies want to know what we as consumers want, like, or have an interest in, they can just look at our My Space or Facebook pages.  Resumes will be just one piece of a job application.  Companies can google you to find out about you.  Students are out there on the web in their social networks.  Networks that go beyond the boundaries of our school districts and even our borders.  This virtual community fosters a level of communication unknown to students just a few years ago.  I think this type of communication will provide students with new perspectives, cultural insight, and truly make it a small world after all.

So what can reading a study on distribution tell us about learners?  First of all, I think it tells us that learners have access to literally millions of views and opinions via the web.  Students are able to search for what they want, decide if that’s really what they wanted, and search some more.  Just as I am writing right now on this topic, someone else may be doing the same.  I am able to see what my classmates think of this topic and decide if I too think that way or if I disagree.  Learners are bombarded with resources.  They must know how to sift their way through these resources and decide if they are credible sources of information, sources of truth or opinion, and real. 

As a teacher, I really need to teach kids now more than ever how to think.  They must be able to filter through everything available and formulate their own opinions on topics, not just reiterate what they’ve read on the Internet.  My fifth grade students believe everything they read on the Internet.  I must teach them that like my blog, many items on the Internet are NOT scientific or research based.  They’re just someone’s two cents. 

Distribution in my day meant textbooks.  I can recall discussion about certain texts not being adopted because of the questionable content contained within their pages, i.e., the idea of evolution in a science book, sex education in health texts, and the history of Jews in history books.  I also am reminded of what the Solomon text has said on the history of Native Americans being left out of textbooks.  If I was a Native American, the social studies book that ignores my cultural background would totally devalue my people.  Likewise, the resources found on the web may or may not be complete, accurate, or even researched.  Distribution today means there are millions of versions of the truth circulating out there on the www.  Learners are searching to create their own truths. 

Literacy is not only being able to read and write.  It also includes being competent in doing something.  When I hear someone say “…I am illiterate…” in a particular area, to me it means they are not able to do something because they have not learned how to do it.  They have little or no understanding of it, lack the ability to talk about it in a meaningful way, and do not use it to achieve any goal, either personally or socially.  On the other hand, being let’s say mathematically literate affords someone the ability to use it for a purpose with understanding. 

After reading Chapter 5 in Solomon and thinking about the different ideas presented, I also thought about the notion of Depth of Knowledge, better known as DOK level in Kentucky in relation to the Core Content.  The DOK level of any objective sets the level of cognitive demands required to master an objective at a particular grade level.  Like DOK levels, I think there are levels of literacy that are defined by social classes and the culture in which we live.