I substitute taught in Pittsburgh for nearly three years starting back in 2011. I mention this because while reading Yardi & Bruckman and Warschauer & Matuchniak, I was brought back to the days of teaching one day in the inner city, and the next in the suburbs.
When teaching in the city, I noticed that teachers were lucky if they had a very (very) old desktop in their rooms (let alone enough chairs or books). While in the suburbs, teachers had personal laptops, students had access to laptop carts, and some even had started to integrate 1-to-1 devices (mostly ipads).
I remember thinking to myself – “How, can two schools 10 minutes away from each other be so different”?
Now that I teach for an online school, the access to technology is more uniform (although some of my students also have personal phones while others do not), but I still notice the wide variety of technical abilities among my 10th-grade students. For some – I can spend days (DAYS) trying to get them to make and share correctly a Google folder, or worse, trying to explain to them how to just open a new tab or right click with their touchpad. Don’t even get me started on explaining to them how important it is that they actually put their work in said folder, use a dropboxes, or how to copy and paste..
While others are comfortable writing code, probably know more about technology than I ever will, and are already bored when I am showing how to do these simple things the first time.
I knew that some of my students struggled more than others, and I, of course, noticed patterns in their SES, etc., but it was very interesting to see in print the research that has been conducted on the digital divide in relation to these variables. So I really liked the point that was made in the Warschauer & Matuchniak reading, when they said that “the most important technology discrepancies in U.S. schools are not in whether computers and the Internet are used, but for what purpose,” (20). They went on to say that “the original digital divide is largely resolved, at least in the United States. 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 kinds of expert thinking and complex communication that are at the heart of the new economy,” (30).
One of my goals as an online teacher is to help guide all of my students to use their devices to explore learning opportunities on their own. This year, in particular, I’m focusing on helping my students think outside of the content presented and to use their devices to look deeper into the content and pursue learning outside of what is just “given” to them.
Of the two readings, I was more drawn to the study conducted by Yardi & Bruckman. I feel that their findings were perhaps more current, since restrictions, rules, expectations etc. may be more easy to research over a period of time, while technology access itself and use are more likely to continue to improve.
I really related to the survey portion, since part of my job is calling my students and their parents on a very regular basis. I find that when I call, some parents are very aware of what their child is doing on their computers during the day while others just assume that if the computer is open, they’re working “on school.” I always find this interesting and really enjoyed the findings discovered in this study.
The two readings we had this week got me thinking about cyber schools and how they may or may not be helping this new digital “learning” divide. Here are a few additional resources I discovered.
Higher Ed Findings:
https://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/08/16/is-online-education-widening-the-digital-divide/
Traditional Brick and Mortar: http://neatoday.org/2016/04/20/the-homework-gap/
Edutopia had a great list of further resources on this topic that cover a variety of contexts! https://www.edutopia.org/digital-divide-technology-access-resources
Yardi, S., & Bruckman, A. (2012). Income, race, and class: exploring socioeconomic differences in family technology use. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3041-3050). ACM.
Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds. (pages 179 through 225).
Assignment: What is your working definition of learning with mobile computers, that is your personal definition/description of what you think learning supported by mobile computers is—or what it could be, drawn from your personal teaching and learning context (a short, 1-2 sentence blog post).
Learning with mobile computers transcends the four walls of a classroom. It opens up endless resources and the imagination. It allows for new ways of conveying information and therefore new ways for students to learn and interact with the content and each other.
I never really stopped to think about why studying the patterns of educational technology is challenging. So when I read,
“This paucity of quantitative and comparative data is entirely understandable given the rapid pace of developments in the technology and the time and resources needed to carry out a useful comparative evaluation. What is the value of running detailed educational evaluations of a prototype mobile learning system implemented on last-year’s handheld technology?” (Sharples 2)
I realized that this makes so much sense. Of course keeping up with technology in itself is a feat alone, how can you possibly collect data fast enough for it to be helpful at the same time? By the time you’d be done with the study, the technology may or may not still be in use (I think about the excitement of Periscope and how it’s fizzled out nearly as fast as it popped up). Sharples mentions this as well, “It should be noted that researchers often reflect on the possible ‘novelty effect’ of using a mobile device for learning, which could wear off after a while,” (5). To add in the layers of technology in the classroom would be nearly impossible.
I enjoyed how the readings were to be looked at more broadly than just the technology mentioned and directed us to focus more on the underlying concepts that were able to be studied longer.
I was particularly drawn to the mention of “clickers” and other poll-like questioning and means of engagement. In both readings, it was said that they had a universally positive effect in the classroom.
“Importantly, students can see where fellow students share their misunderstandings, and that they are not alone. Further, because the displayed responses are anonymous, embarrassment is reduced (Owens et al., 2002). Teachers can check for understanding with conceptual questions (with common misconceptions as possible answers) and are frequently surprised by the results (Dufresne et al., 1996).” (Roschelle, 2003, Sharpes 4)
“[T]hrough buttons on “clickers” that resemble television remote controls-but leverage the shared displays to make publicly available the classroom’s level of consensus on concepts taught, information often missed in traditional instruction. Such systems can help the teacher focus instructional attention on the issues most significant for the classroom-as-a-whole considered as the unit of learning.” (Pea 436)
This is something that in my own online classroom, I use frequently. In my Adobe Classroom, there is an integrated poll option, I can write open ended questions, multiple choice, etc., and see student responses but only “cast” their responses without their names attached, we use this to gauge engagement, understanding, and to tailor our lessons to the students’ needs. Students were also really drawn to a tool I used frequently last year, Kahoot! which had similar functions but also included a fun game like and competitive atmosphere that they enjoyed.
One challenge that I’m so thankful not to have, is having a device for each of my students. I remember the days of laptop carts and computer rooms (with a teacher schedule for reservations…eesh). I’m sure that that’s still the case for some schools, but now that I’m working for an online school, it has opened up so many opportunities for me and therefore my students! Including – having unlimited access to computers and technology for all instructional time. When Pea wrote, “The promise of harnessing computing where every student has his or her own computer, and where they are available everyday, anytime, anywhere – for equitable, personal, effective, and engaging learning- give WILD a greater transformative potential than desktop computers,” I got so excited, I was sitting here saying, “Yes, yes…I have this” (427). When he went on to say,
“Evermore prevalent, and presupposing at least a ratio between students and computers,is the concept of “ubiquitous computing” (Weiser, 1991), in which computers are embedded in everyday life activities to the point of invisibility, so that we unconsciously and effortlessly harness their digital abilities as effort-saving strategies for achieving the benefits of “distributed intelligence,'” (Weiser 1991, Pea, 1993, Pea 428)
I”m curious if this is still an issue for anyone? It’s been about five years since I’ve worked in a brick and mortar school.
I will end with this as my final thoughts for this week’s readings. Pea states, “the challenge now is to combine advances in the sciences of learning with information technology capabilities to dramatically improve student learning,” (428). This is the challenge. How do we take what we know works, what we think works, and what might work–and continue to improve student learning through technology when researching it is so challenging since technology is ever changing. I think the answer is…that we keep learning, implementing, and analyzing new things…rinse, wash, repeat.
I’m excited for the rest of this course and what we will all discover!
Pea, R. D., & Moldonado, H. (2006). WILD for learning: Interacting through new computing devices anytime, anywhere. (Chapter 25).
Sharples, M. (2013). Mobile learning: research, practice and challenges. Distance Education in China, 3(5), 5-11.
