Digital Divides

Digital Divides Response

I believe there are digital divides occurring in schools today. One school that I observed in was a very middle of the road school. They were not Title 1 and they did not have many Talented and Gifted students. Because of this, they were at the bottom of the barrel when it came to technology from the district level. Their need was not seen as great enough. Financially, I think that some students will never get to use technology in school. The district has to have some way of divvying out resources that they deem “fair.” If students and schools aren’t labeled “high risk,” or “G/T,” or “special needs” they don’t need any extra help according to the district. So any middle of the road “average” student might fly under the radar and never have access to these super cool resources.

I think we need to stop looking at technology as something only very low schools or very high schools “need.” In this day and age, every single student needs access to technology in order to be successful.

Technology is being used in classrooms. How effectively depends entirely on the teacher, and their level of familiarity with the technologies. A document camera might sit in a classroom untouched because a teacher doesn’t know how to use it and won’t take the time to learn.

Specific schools might have a technology focus, and therefore might be given extra resources, but otherwise, technology is distributed according to school performance.

Digital Divides

1)   Middle-of-the-road-schools are not getting technology resources.

If a school has low test scores, districts will give them money to try to raise their test scores. If a school has high test scores and many Gifted and Talented students, they receive extra funding to enrich those students. Schools that are in the middle can often be ignored because the are “doing just fine,” or so the district thinks. This is caused by funds needing to be allotted and districts do their best to work with what they have. Middle of the road schools can talk to their districts, attend meetings to get their say in, and write grants specifically for technology for their school. 

2)   Special needs students are allotted more technology than “regular” students. It is mandated by law that students on Individualized Education Plans receive more funding for their schools. They require services that general education teachers cannot provide. Other teachers and specialists must be hired. Schools need to be cognicent of how they distribute school wide technology funds and make sure that all students have access to technology. Schools can put a committee of teachers together to help them make this plan and effectively go through with it.

3)   Students with Special Needs Might Possess the Technology, but They Still do not Have Access to it. Physically having the technology in their hands is a start, but students with special needs, just like any other student, require a specific skill set to be able to work with different technologies. Too many people think give a student an iPad and they will teach themselves. This is the cause of the problem. These technologies are not just toys to distract them with. They need to be used purposefully. This needs to spill over into the general education classroom as well. Teachers need to make a plan altogether, perhaps in the IPE, of how we are going to make the curricula, and technology accessible to all of our students, and especially students with special needs.

Digital Divides Annotated Bibliography

Hardaker, G. (2010). Cognitive learning styles and digital equity: Searching for the middle way. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(8), 777-794. Retrieved from http://www.informaworld.com.dml.regis.edu/openurl?genre= article&id=doi:10.1080/13603110802680786 

Hardaker explains how he thinks the most important first step teachers need to take in order to be most effective in working with students of diversity is to recognize their cognitive learning styles. In order to better support these students we need to be relevant to the virtual generation.

Hudson, H. T. (2011). The digital divide. Instructor, 121(2), 46-50. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ945726

Hudson discusses how traditionally the term “digital divide” has been used to describe the gap in socio-economic status. However there can be another divide found: the gap between how teachers see school technology and how students see it. She claims we as teachers are still using technology in the classroom to teach at students, rather than put it in their hands to learn with.

Institute of Museum and Library Services. (2011). Proposed framework for digitally inclusive communities. Institute of Museum and Library Services, 99. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED521127

This document of proposed framework for digital inclusion was put out by the Institute of Museum and Library Services in 2011. This document fosters the understanding that everyone in the United States has the right to access technology resources equally. In this article they discuss their plan for implementing this digital inclusion framework.

Seale, J. (2010). Digital agility and digital decision-making: Conceptualizing digital inclusion in the context of disabled learners in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 35(4), 445-461. Retrieved from http://www.informaworld.com.dml.regis

openurl?genre=article&id=doi:10.1080/03075070903131628 

In this article, Seale discusses how digital inclusion has always been thought of as just accessibility to the technology resources. Studies are now being done that say students with special needs require much more than just access to the technology: they require access to the curriculum and knowledge of the technology as well.  The authors propose there be a conceptual framework instated in education that focuses on concepts of digital inclusion. 

Warschauer, M. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179-225. Retrieved from  http://dx.doi.org.dml.regis.edu/10.3102/0091732X09349791

This article discusses not only the availability of technology to different groups of youth, it also addresses the social implications of those youth on the technology. Warschauer states that how we measure student success in different socio-economic statuses affects their mastery of 21^st Century Skills.

Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling: Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562-588. DOI: 10.1177/0895904804266469                                                                                   Warschauer explains how there is a gap in the use of technology in schools depending on the socio-economic status of the school and its student population. He believes that there is not one inherent factor, but many. The study done tracked technology use in several high SES schools and several low SES schools. The subject matter made a difference. In math, for instance, the high SES schools might have used computers for statistical analysis in an AP Stats class. This class was not offered at the low SES schools. The low SES schools had students working on computers for individualized algebra instruction. This kind of instruction was not needed by the students in the high SES schools.

Worcman, K., & Holland, M. P. (2002). Digital division is cultural exclusion, but is digital inclusion cultural inclusion? D-Lib Magazine, 8(3). 

In this article, the author discusses the paradigm and relationship between a culture of a people and the amount of digital resources they have access to. Worcman discusses several different indigenous communities and how they have digital equity. She also looks at their culture and how technologies fit in.