The concept that struck me most this week was the difference between how low-SES and high-SES students engage in interest-driven activities using technology, and how that correlates with the concept of consumption vs creation that we learned about in the video last week, as well the effect that may have on the ability of the high- and low-SES students to master 21st century skills.
Beginning on page 192, Warschauer (2010) discusses the two stages of interest-driven online participation, messing around and geeking out, and the differences between what that type of participation looks like for low-SES youths vs high-SES youths. In his example, the high-SES student, Zeke, was engaged in a very creative and interactive activity, using technology in innovative ways to develop his own online voting system, and holding his own class president election, even though it wasn’t officially sanctioned by the administration at the school. In contrast, the low-SES student, Kadesha, acted more as a consumer of the media, downloading photos of celebrities, and “cyber-window shopping” with friends, and she specifically avoids engaging in activities online that require reading. This stark difference in how two students who are similar in age are using the technology available to them is very jarring, and is a reflection on how that technology is scaffolded for those students.
Yardi (2012, p3047) discusses the issue of parental technology literacy, and found in their study that high-SES families generally had at least one parent who was technologically literate, and were generally better equipped than the low-SES parents to make informed decisions about how their children interact with technology. Additionally, Warschauer (2010) cites a study conducted by Becker (2000), in which he found that teachers in low-SES schools were more likely to use technology in less innovative ways, such as for skill remediation and drill-and-practice exercises (consuming), whereas high-SES teachers were more likely to develop lessons using constructivist teaching methods, and focus on higher-level thinking activities like information analysis and writing assignments (creating). This lack of appropriate scaffolding around technology use in the low-SES schools, the environment where the least discrepancy in access occurs between low- and high-SES students, extends into how these low-SES students engage with technology outside of the classroom, manifesting itself as something Warschauer refers to on page 203 as the “social envelope”: high-SES students do better (have higher test scores) when they have computers, because they are able to use them in constructive ways, whereas low-SES students do worse (have lower test scores) when using computers, because they’re not taught how to use them constructively, and computer use at home becomes a time for gaming and social conversation, infringing on study time rather than enhancing it.
This discrepancy between consumption activities and creation activities also relates directly to the 21st century skills that Warschauer (2010) references on page 206. Many of the skills that he mentions, including things like creativity, critical thinking, self-direction, and leadership, require the ability to create rather than just regurgitate facts. His description of the digital divide today I think summarizes this issue perfectly. On page 213, he says, “Today the digital divide resides in differential ability to use new media to critically evaluate information, analyze, and interpret data, attack complex problems, test innovative solutions, manage multifaceted projects, collaborate with others in knowledge production, and communicate effectively to diverse audiences–in essence, to carry out the kind of expert thinking and complex communication that are at the heart of the new economy.” We’ve moved from a digital divide centered on access to a divide centered on support. Many low-SES students now have access to the internet and other new media, but they don’t have the support system in place to learn how to interact with it properly. Moving forward, if we don’t find ways to provide that support, either in the classroom, at home, or in the community, the gap will continue to widen.
Richard Adams says
Very valid point about even though schools are starting to teach computer use I do not see the students learning as much as others based on their lack of experience. For example both student A and B take the same introduction to word class then they are told they are going to have to type a report using what they learned there may be some different looking reports. Student A may be in the same class but he does not have access to a computer lab or a computer at home which leads to that student loosing the ability to learn by repetition. To the same extent Student B has not only a computer at home but also a parent who is “fluent” in Microsoft word who uses that resources to write their report. With all that being said I believe the possibility of all students to be on the same level but I agree that without a support system they will always be lacking some where or another. Even though technological resources are getting cheaper and more accessible I unfortunately do not see a learning environment in which all are equal as with the changing technologies there seems to always be a bigger more expensive learning tool that is not available to all parties. I look forward to the days of free internet and essentially free computers and I am sure when that day comes I wholeheartedly believe that one of those students who grew up without technology access could in fact be the next great creator. Great blog and a great example of building from one week till the next.
pbs134 says
Heather, I couldn’t agree more with your reaction from the readings. The real issue boils down to the “use” category that Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) discuss. Much of what I discussed in my own post and the reaction to the video center around teacher development and parent training. Without the framework to use and support technology in an educationally-based, critical-thinking manner, it can actually become detrimental. In fact, Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) cite a study by the Texas Center for Educational Research that identified negative affects of one-to-one laptop programs for low-SES and minority students.
The support and training issue gets at the heart of the matter, which is ensuring the proper use of technology. One of the main reasons for the poor results in the “Texas” research may have been that students used technology too often for distracting purposes, such as social and image-based activities. One of Warschauer’s studies concluded that, “teachers in high-income communities were more likely to expect and promote critical inquiry and information literacy that were teachers in low-income areas Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010). Without proper teacher development, increased access to technology will do nothing but offer an additional avenue for distraction from critical learning.
Jane Sutterlin says
You did an excellent job of bringing out the high-SES and low-SES differences in technology usage in this country. What really sticks out for me is not necessarily the access always, but how it is used. So to just say that we need to give students that are in the low-SES technology is not enough. I remember this same argument with books. You can’t just give a student a book and expect that they know what to do with it. This goes back to the basics of how people learn. What experiences do they bring into the classroom to connect learning. Are they bringing misconceptions that our schools are not identifying and then reinforcing? Are schools that support low-SES children having to spend time on other issues that possibly high-SES schools do not battle (ie attendance, discipline etc.). I hope in future lessons in this class we start to focus on the ‘how’ of using these technologies. How should teachers and parents be incorporating these technologies to foster learning. I remember when we started our laptop implementation in our school that a majority of administrators felt that the new teachers would become the leaders of technology integration. It was quite the opposite. The experienced teachers who knew the curriculum, knew classroom management and understood student learning did a much better job of integrating the technology as a tool, rather than the activity. There is so much more involved than just providing the tool.
Excellent job of pulling the readings together.