Equity... An Issue?
What thoughts do you have about digital equity after having read the three articles?
In your work setting, do you see evidence of a divide according to race, gender, or socioeconomic status? What are some ways you can address this issue?
Your posts should include your own reactions to the assigned readings, but you should ALSO read your classmates' responses and base your own comments on what they have said.
Please click on the "comment" link below to submit your thoughts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
The most interesting thing I’d like to point out about the readings is that they are from 2004 and 2005. One must take that into consideration when reading them and wonder what may have changed in the past 5-6 years that may have changed the content of these readings. I can’t answer that question, but it’s still a good one to have in mind. Think about your computer in 2003. What did you do with it? Did you ever go to an Internet cafe? Do you even know where one exists now? How about your internet connection, your cell phone, your T.V., even? Were you on Facebook? Did you know about it? How about MySpace? I know personally, my use of technology has changed drastically in the past six years based on technology available alone.
Aside from the issue of time, these readings raise a lot of issues. Closing the Gender Gap intrigued me because it really made me think about why more girls aren’t interested in programming or computer science. My husband is a software engineer/programmer at a company nearby. I must say, after meeting many of his co-workers, I can only recall ever meeting two women. Usually the women in this particular company are employed in the marketing sector, not the programming/engineering sector. That jives with what McGrath found in her research. The girls were more interested in the aspects of the assignment that involved collaboration and communication.
But why, exactly? I wonder if it’s because computer science and computer engineering is rarely taught on the high school level. In the high school where I intern, I have only happened upon a computer science class once, and there was only one of them available. After looking at the roster, the class was all boys and one girl. If programming, or even just technology in general, isn’t presented as an option or a field of study in schools, students would have to find out about it and develop an interest in it on their own. I might venture to say that boys would be more likely to do so in their spare time at home.
One has to conclude, after reading the three articles that we still have to work with providing digital equity in several areas. We have to offer meaningful digital media access to all students regardless of gender, social, abilities or economical background. Technology itself is not at fault in trying to accomplish this goal, is the human being behind it. This is another example that educators are the main conductor in the student learning process. A teacher that cares about every student academic improvement will look for ways to provide opportunities to use technology in an enriching way. A teacher has to become and continue to be a learner before becoming a teacher. Educators cannot become comfortable in the traditional ways of teaching. They should become their student’s advocates in obtaining the appropriate digital media to their students’ needs. They should claim for better and continuing training on how to better use technology in the classroom.
Working in Bridgeport around four years ago, I saw my students attend their computer class. It was just a word processing class and the teacher will always stay away from the students. As a matter of fact, if the students came to the computer area in a rowdy manner she will send them back to the classroom as a consequence for their behavior. It took me few weeks to realize the teacher lack of commitment was affecting my student’s access to a quality technology education. They had the computers available but they didn’t have access to a quality instruction. Later, on I taught in Westport, where I say a smart board and a laptop cart for the first time. They had access to technology. Nevertheless, there was no equity in the access to a quality of instruction because while the French Department were using podcast and digital stories to teach, practice and create French communication the Spanish teachers used the computer laboratories to create just written projects with clipart without any interaction. At my present school, I have seen students take the Blue Ribbon test in computers. They have learned how to use Inspiration to organize information. They have used type to learn. What I have not figured out yet is if there is collaboration between the classroom teachers and the media specialist on the creation of project based learning. Also, I do not know if there is any type of accommodation for special education students in the educational use of technology what I consider is another aspect of digital inequity. I believe for what I have witness that they do not match the educational technology with the students’ individual needs.
One thing is clear, based in my educational experience; there is no equity in technology access. The best way to address this issues are advocating for more training on how to integrate technology education in the classroom providing quality and equal access to students regardless of gender, social, abilities or economic background.
Unlike Lea’s husband experience, my husband work as a Project Manager for Global Technology and work with many female coworkers in London, Brazil and the United States. As Diane McGrath says in her article,"female like to understand, see how things connect and why they work" and that all applies to the field of Project Management in technology. A project manager has to understand a service request, see how that request connect with the rest of the network and if they work. Project Management in technology required a lot of collaboration and communication. So, I think that is why maybe there is more female that have found more equity as Technology Project Manager than software engineering/programming. What do you think Lea?
As we learned in the UDL article, technology is a tool to support teaching and learning. Technology is not a replacement for a good teacher. Nothing can replace a teacher being there to explain to the student why he got the answer wrong. The example of the poor child trying to find the correct answer and even asking the computer to help is very telling. He might never learn the correct answer. The teacher most likely would get a report from the computer telling him or her just how many mistakes this boy got made. I think students need to have direct contact with the teacher during learning, especially in the elementary years.
I agree with the article Law, Software fuel new ‘Digital Divide' that wealthy districts invest in teachers. I work in New Canaan in an elementary school. The students receive instruction for all the subjects in the classrooms. However, Instructional assistants come to the classes to help during specific classes such as math or reading. They walk around and help the individual students. Each classroom has a couple of computers but they are hardly used. The students use the computer lab to learn how to use a computer not to learn about the academic subject.
I think part of the problem is that poor districts are so desperate to improve their student’s results, in order to receive more state and national funding. They turn to software companies who promise them their software will raise their test scores.
As stated in the article, using these computer drills does not have a lasting effect. The students might learn it for the test but could easily forget it right afterwards.
Technology definitely is very useful in education but as a way to help students find, organize and present information. The actual education needs to come from a knowledgeable and caring teacher.
Perhaps superintendents of less advantaged districts should take a look at districts where students are successful and see how those districts use technology to complement teaching, not substitute it.
In response to the digital equity readings, I would have to agree on some of the points made by Warren and Tillberg, and disagree on others. Having worked as both a classroom teacher and a counselor in districts such as Yonkers, NY, East Hartford, and Norwalk, some of the best technology out there has been present in those schools. In fact, Yonkers had a program in 2004 where a couple of the middle schools received laptops from Dell for every 8th grader in the building. Norwalk, when I first got there, had older hardware for faculty, but the students computers were renewed every three years. BMHS was the first wireless school building in the district, and it's media center was nicer and more technology equipped (four computer laps, 3 banks of student computers, two smart boards and mobile laptop banks) then some colleges I've been in. In the community,the Carver Center in Norwalk has a computer lab available for student use, and classes are taught there as well.
It is an interesting point made about the discrepancies in poorer, more diverse districts, then in suburban, more affluent districts. The authors claim that in poorer districts, the districts will generally subscribe to the latest software and hardware packages, beautiful computers labs, and a technological centered curriculum because it essentially helps kids close the gap on what they don't know for state exams. In more affluent districts, the money spent on software in poorer districts usually goes instead toward hiring talented teachers. The authors suggest that because teachers in the poorer district might not be as strong or as qualified than in more affluent districts, so the software helps level the planning field. I would totally concur with that assessment, having come from Norwalk now working in Darien, I can see the differences in the strengths of the teaching staffs. However, there is not the same kind of support for new teachers in the more diverse, poorer districts, then there is for a new teacher in a district like Darien, so this can not be placed at the teachers feet. Districts should be invest in the best teachers first, because the best teachers can make the software or technology that much more effective because they know how to properly use it.
These articles were quite interesting in the way they spoke about the "digital divide" in schools. I, myself can say that I have seen these technological inequalities firsthand as a substitute teacher. In Bridgeport, I have seen that the children are really encouraged to use programs on the computer like Lexia to better their reading skills. I never really put much thought into it and let them go on to practice. After reading the article by Alec MacGillis, I must say that I am going to think twice about letting students go on computer programs.
Over the years, the whole system of drilling material into the student's heads has gone the way of the dodo, but now we are slowly seeing a revival of the drilling tactic by way of the computers. I personally feel that computers have become a necessary part of the classroom and that students should definitely have access to them, but they should be able to have much more open ended experiences than procedural ones that were talked about in the Closing the Gender Gap article. Students need the chance to explore the computers and most importantly, the Internet, in order to learn. Projects such as WebQuests are a valuable tool here as they allow students to research whatever it is they are doing without being drilled on the subject.
There are, however, more issues regarding the digital divide than just how to make sure students obtain the best education. Socioeconomic factors are extremely important. I am going to use the example of Bridgeport to relay my meaning. Bridgeport is bascially, not the most well off town in Connecticut. It houses a population of about 400,000 and a large amount of people below the poverty level. Children here don't really get the opportunities that children in Fairfield for example get. Many of the teachers in Bridgeport are usually just starting off their teaching careers and getting used to actually teaching. This is fine, but the problem is that Bridgeport does not have the highest number of established teachers and that, in my beliefs, takes away from the student's educational abilities. Bridgeport is now a town that has become technologically dependent and has a large number of computers and other technological advances in the classrooms. Education here can be, in a sense, compared to Camden in the article by MacGilllis. Here in Bridgeport, technology oversteps it's boundaries in the educational process. Teachers are rarely required to reinforce what they teach as students get this "reinforcement" on the computers either in class or their three times a week computer labs.
Race may or may not be an issue. From these articles, it wasn't exactly emphasized. In fact, the Law, Software fuel and "Digital Divide article has an example where students in the Montgomery School system (which is largely minority based) has one of the better school systems in the country. I believe it is much more about how the districts themselves spend their budget money than factors like race and even gender. If districts like Camden and even Bridgeport spend a little more time and take more risks with teachers, it is very possible that the quality of education will increase dramatically over the computer centered classrooms present today.
I definitely see evidence of this gender gap at Norwalk High School. Since I am an intern and substitute all class subjects, I've noticed the overwhelming differences in the business classes. The business courses consist of computer classes, graphics classes and other classes using technology. In all of these classes it is comprised of mostly male students. When I subbed for those classes I wondered why there were only a couple girls in the classes. At that point I concluded it was because the composition of males all had histories of behavioral problems and they took the "easy" electives. I am now second guessing myself after reading these three articles.
It appears to me that the problem isn't that the girls are uninterested in courses involving technology but don't take the classes for other reasons. This parallels what McGrath found. At Norwalk, I believe more girls aren't enrolled in technology classes because of the disruptive boys who are in the classes. They know their voice won't be heard, they get overshadowed by the boys and it drastically effects their ability to learn.
McGrath explained how girls prefer communication and there seems to be a lack of that in technology classes. I agree with McGrath on these findings. In Norwalk's technology classes there's frustrations on the teachers end due to the constant behavioral management issues which leaves little patience to help those who may be quiter in class, the girls.
It appears that closing the gender gap is a societal issue at Norwalk. Girls elect to not take technology classes because of the method of instruction that takes place in the male dominated atmosphere.
In response to Vivian's comment about the experience of the female in the technology industry, I totally agree with you, Vivian! It’s funny; because my Mom was a mechanical engineer at a GM supplier (she’s retired now) and rose to the role of project manager very early in here career, in which position she was extremely successful. Like technology, auto engineering is a very male dominated field, but there are places where the traditional attributes of a woman’s expertise, like communication and collaboration, can be a fantastic way for women to get involved in the field.
I must admit, though, that my Mom had a lot to overcome in that male dominated work environment. Over her 30 years at this particular company, she has seen the workplace turn from a place where cat-calling in the factory was completely okay to a place where no one would dream to disrespect a colleague in that way. She has also noticed that there are a few more females interested in the industry year after year. By the time I went to my undergrad college, she had organized a ‘girl’s night out’ of about a dozen women she called her peers and superiors in the company. I am so proud of what she has accomplished, and I hope that the strides she has seen in her own industry are a sign of what may come in the technology industry. I know this is a little off topic, but I feel it is an appropriate response to the question of women as project managers, whether it be in technology or the auto industry.
Where to even begin discussing digital equity? I have been in technology for more years that I can count. I was hired to be a computer programmer at a time when there was a push to get more women into the technology field. I have worked primarily with men in my career. The number of women has increased over the years but I recently was head of an IT department that consisted of 3 women and 16 men. Women are found in the application development/business analysis areas because they are more people facing roles. Hardware, networking and support services remain predominantly male. I have been working with a program in New Haven County that promotes STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) careers in high schools and middle schools. At one career fair I was repeatedly asked about technology careers by the boys, not the girls. The boys’ questions centered on how to become a video game programmer. My interaction with them backed up the statement in “Closing the Gender Gap” that “girls do not like the computer game culture or the narrow and technical focus of computer science. Instead, they end up taking applications courses and generally disapprove of what they see as the machine focus of boys.” If I was a teenager today looking at what is available in the computer field I might never have chosen a career in information technology. The thing I loved most about technology was what it could do for people. The articles about "Law, software fuel new 'digital divide’” and “Striving for Digital Equity” talk about that issue. What is technology actually doing for students? As we have heard and read many times, technology is just a tool. If a tool is not used properly it provides no benefit. I think we all agree that the teacher has the biggest impact on learning in a classroom. Not technology, not the textbooks, not the physical environment, the TEACHER. A good teacher with no technology will have greater impact on students than a bad teacher with the latest technology. Unfortunately, good teachers often have little or spotty technology to use. Computers may be newer but older networks providing inconsistent internet connections can bring a great lesson to a halt. Good technology that is not supported in the building will make teachers shy away from using it in the classroom. Technology, as described in Universal Design for Learning, needs to be integrated into the classroom seamlessly. Lesson content that is engaging to students needs to be developed and taught by teachers who are trained to use a variety of technologies which are fully available to them and supported by building personnel. The problem posed in "Law, software fuel new 'digital divide’” is that when there is no ‘unlimited’ budget for technology and education and you are faced with having to produce results (No Child Left Behind), where do you spend your money? I must admit that speaking as a math person, there is a real need for memorization and practice of basic mathematics facts in schools. Drilling software may be used for that purpose but I am not sure the cost is justifiable. There may be other ways to accomplish the task. Depending too much on that type of software leads to a narrow view of what technology can do and as Alec MacGillis says “Students, education researchers say, need a true understanding of subject matter they can apply to problems even if they are presented in ways other than the questions students are drilled on. The programs, they say, fail to encourage intangibles crucial to students’ future success, such as curiosity, critical thinking and creativity.” Project Based Learning (PBL) was shown to eliminate the gender gap because it allowed all students to explore math concepts. Web quests are given as an example of a great way to use technology and promote PBL. What will close the digital divide may be teachers making learning authentic and using whatever tools are available to promote deep understanding. It is not all about the technology.
Where to even begin discussing digital equity? I have been in technology for more years that I can count. I was hired to be a computer programmer at a time when there was a push to get more women into the technology field. I have worked primarily with men in my career. The number of women has increased over the years but I recently was head of an IT department that consisted of 3 women and 16 men. Women are found in the application development/business analysis areas because they are more people facing roles. Hardware, networking and support services remain predominantly male. If I was a teenager today looking at what is available in the computer field I might never have chosen a career in information technology. The thing I loved most about technology was what it could do for people. The articles about "Law, software fuel new 'digital divide’” and “Striving for Digital Equity” talk about that issue. What is technology actually doing for students? As we have heard and read many times, technology is just a tool. If a tool is not used properly it provides no benefit. I think we all agree that the teacher has the biggest impact on learning in a classroom. Not technology, not the textbooks, not the physical environment, the TEACHER. A good teacher with no technology will have greater impact on students than a bad teacher with the latest technology. Unfortunately, good teachers often have little or spotty technology to use. Computers may be newer but older networks providing inconsistent internet connections can bring a great lesson to a halt. Good technology that is not supported in the building will make teachers shy away from using it in the classroom. Technology, as described in Universal Design for Learning, needs to be integrated into the classroom seamlessly. Lesson content that is engaging to students needs to be developed and taught by teachers who are trained to use a variety of technologies which are fully available to them and supported by building personnel. The problem posed in "Law, software fuel new 'digital divide’” is that when there is no ‘unlimited’ budget for technology and education and you are faced with having to produce results (No Child Left Behind), where do you spend your money? I must admit that speaking as a math person, there is a real need for memorization and practice of basic mathematics facts in schools. Drilling software may be used for that purpose but I am not sure the cost is justifiable. There may be other ways to accomplish the task. Depending too much on that type of software leads to a narrow view of what technology can do and as Alec MacGillis says “Students, education researchers say, need a true understanding of subject matter they can apply to problems even if they are presented in ways other than the questions students are drilled on. The programs, they say, fail to encourage intangibles crucial to students’ future success, such as curiosity, critical thinking and creativity.” Project Based Learning (PBL) was shown to eliminate the gender gap because it allowed all students to explore math concepts. Web quests are given as an example of a great way to use technology and promote PBL. What will close the digital divide may be teachers making learning authentic and using whatever tools are available to promote deep understanding. It is not all about the technology.
This is more of a response to just two sentences from the closing the gender gap article. The author wrote, "I think we have learned that girls want some things out of their studies that we hope all students will want: understanding, to see how things connect and why they work. Girls want to be able to participate, and they want to social, cognitive, and physical space in which to do so."
The only positive words that I can gather from this is the word hope. The author makes it seem that girls are the only ones who want to gain knowledge from their education. What the author states is that the needs listed are gender specific, which I believe is not true.
Every student, male or female, wants to learn. I know that the sexes learn in different ways and our brains are hardwired differently. That does not mean that females are the only ones who want to learn or have a desire for understanding.
I believe that the gender gap the author is writing about does not really have to do with gender, instead it has to do with the culture in which parents raise the different sexes. As a child our interests are almost forced upon us, boys play with boy toys and girls play with girls toys. By doing this parents, unknowingly, drive us towards a specific gender role.
Don't get me wrong I know that with somethings there is a gender gap. I just find it hard to see one in young children using a computer.
My first, overall impression is that the players are the same for this issue as with all of the other educational (or even political) issues facing America.
Gender and poverty seem to rank high on the perennial "at-risk" category list, and so it is not surprising that once again these categories top the "digital equity" or rather "digital non-equity" issue list.
Typically cited as not serving students are teaching methods which "open up student's brains and pour information in." The "drill and test" methods cited as being used in Camden, NJ are methods that are similar to instructional methods being used in some districts in Connecticut (and I am sure elsewhere around the country) that are not technology-based, but where anyone can stand up in front of a class and read step-by-step procedures for students to follow.
So, where is the added value in bringing in this technology? It doesn't seem to.
Once again, the issue of high-quality teachers is at the root of many fixable problems.
I was raised near Camden, NJ, and I can attest to the extreme poverty and desparation in the area. These children, students, families and communities need to be known as more than the "Couch Dancing" capital of the country. In an effort to not seem to be the "educational reform flavor of the month," what can be done?
After reading the comments, I have a couple of additional thoughts.
First, regarding why poorer districts may be justified in using the "drill and test" software. A huge factor that these school districts have to face is if they do not make AYP, they loose money, money they can ill-afford to loose. Investing initially in the more, shall we say, foundational software could be viewed as a stepping-stone to investing the very large amounts of money that would be taken from them if they do not make significant progress, in more higher-order thinking software technology. These districts are under the gun to produce. At any cost.
Secondly, in response to Vivian's comment, "A teacher has to become and continue to be a learner before becoming a teacher." I believe that this comment is at the heart of school improvement, no matter the district or academic subject matter. If you have engaged teachers, you have engaged students. Now, that said, you can have teacher burn-out, if teachers are not supported by admistration. Teacher responsibilities are enormous and need to be supported to be successful educators.
I do agree with what Roni says that the teacher is the ultimate tool in the classroom and not the technology. It is true that the children will probably have a better education with a teacher that uses no technology but the other question is whether this is a good thing or not. I believe that in this day and age, you need to have some kind of technological aspect in the classroom. Times are changing and more and more students are getting access to computers everyday. The children need to be educated on the use of the machines and be able to utilize them to learn.
Blake talks about the gender issue and explains it very well. Both sexes have the urge to learn and it really shouldn't be about gender at all. The author of the article states that girls think differently, but in the end who doesn't? Every learner is different from one another and it really isn't fair to say that one gender thinks differently from the other.
Now going to Christine M's comment about districts that can't afford to take risks. I believe that they can and they should. Every year the district fails to fulfill expectations, they lose money. Teachers then end up getting fired and whole districts start getting changed from the ground up. This may seem like a great idea but it isn't, at least for the students. Programs (like world language) start getting cut and materials start getting taken away. How can the students receive a proper education if the schools do not have what they need? Buying computer programs to fill the need?
The three articles were very interesting. I never really thought about girls not being into computers. I see now where the teenage girls are are into texting constantly, but I guess that doesn’t mean they are into computers. After reading that particular article I actually thought for a minute and realized it is true. The majority or computer programmers are males. Apple and Microsoft; created by males. My very good friend has a company where they place computer people in companies and the majority are males. I was also surprised by the article “Law, software fuel new ‘digital divide’”. I don’t understand why a lot of the schools use computers to “practice” on the computer some of the tests. The more they practice the better they’ll do. I think schools are too busy practicing for the tests as the better they do the more money they get? What happened to teaching them a little bit more to make sure they understand what they are supposed to do?
Right now I can’t comment too much about what I see in the schools. I am not in contact with kids in a regular basis, so unfortunately I don’t personally see the difference in gender, race or socioeconomic status.
In response to Jose's comment: How can the students receive a proper education if the schools do not have what they need?
This to me is a misconception and makes it seem that the education of students falls solely on the educator or school. The education of students is a group effort. Parents of guardians need to take an active role in the education of their children.
Think back to when you were a child. I know for me I could not go outside and play unless all of my homework was done and I showed my parents. They would check it and be active in my education. I believe that this is where the break down is.
Were our teachers better educators compared to todays teachers?
Roni,
I really like your post. First, you have fist hand experience in the technology field that you can relate to the gender effect. Then, the sentence “a good teacher with no technology will have greater impact on students that a bad teacher with the latest technology”. It is so much true. A good teacher will make all the kids understand the lesson without any help from computers as a bad teacher needs, I guess, computers to teach the lesson better as she/he is incompetent to do it. I am not too crazy about doing drills for the test on the computers. What I think is with all the CMT’s, if a school does poorly on them they might not get as much funding, where the bottom line is that the principals feel responsible or are blame if the school does a bad job. Maybe that’s why they feel they need to do a lot of drills in order to do better on the CMT’s, where if the teacher does a good job in teaching the subject, the students might not need as much drills. As part of my job is going to all the schools testing them in English as a second language, we cannot disturb any kids in preparation to the CMT’s, and I am talking weeks in advance. How long does it take to get you ready for a test, a few days? These kids do these tests every year, so I would assume they already know what type of test they are going to get…
I must say I was shocked with some of the attitudes of the teachers from the “Law, software fuel new ‘digital divide’ article. Today schools are becoming more and more dependent on “drill and kill” software programs to do their teachers jobs. In other words, teachers feel that the time their students are spending on the computers is a time for them to just step back and have the computer do the teaching. Although schools scores have gone up in reading and math due to such programs, what does this mean for the students? Is this software really benefiting the students in the long run? Or is this just a quick fix for the schools to protect their reputation? I would have to agree with many of the points made in this article in terms of the quality of these programs. Obviously when a student is asked to memorize facts, rules, formulas, or concepts for a test, they will do well but will they be able to refer back to it later down the road? I don’t believe in such “drill and kill” teaching. I believe as educators it is important to provide students with rich opportunities to explore options and ways of doing things. I also feel that students should be encourage to find other answers for a problem and to understand that there is not just one right answer for everything. Therefore, focusing entirely on “basic remediation” (Staff, 2004) with drilling software does not equip students with the strategies and skills they will need to solve problems in the upper grades. In this respect we have failed our students by ill equipping them with the necessary skills and instead have taught them only the recipes or rote skills (Staff, 2004). Thus, software programs should be used in conjunction to teaching. It should be considered a tool that teachers can implement into their curriculum to help strengthen their students skills in certain areas. More importantly, these programs should encourage students to be creative and should be considered as a means for finding information and creating new knowledge.
In response to Christine M’s comment about poorer districts using the “drill and kill” software, I would have to agree with her. This past year I was an intern at High Horizons Magnet School in Bridgeport, CT. In grades 3-8th, teachers were given allotted time in the computer lab for their students to work on a program called “Study Island” which prepared them for the Bridgeport Online Test. High Horizons was experiencing pressure not only from the Board of Education but from their neighboring school, Multicultural Magnet School, whose scores were soaring. However, I don’t see this “drill and kill” software as the only answer for students to make progress. As I discussed before and as the “Striving for Digital Equity” article states, how exactly is this technology benefiting the students and enhancing their learning. Thus I claim that such software programs be used to enhance teaching and be used as a tool to help students strengthen their skills and understanding. We need to start becoming more focused and concerned with providing our students with an education that encourages them to become active members in their community and less obsessed with test scores.
When discussing issues about the gender gap, I will have to agree with Blake when he says that every student wants to learn. I strongly agree with this and Jose stated it perfectly “every learner is different from one another”. We all learn differently through our different learning styles. We all come from different backgrounds. We all have different experiences. We all understand something differently. Therefore, I don’t believe it to be far for the author in the “Closing the Gender Gap” to be fair in claiming that girls are the only ones who want to learn. I do believe its fair to say that some are better at things then others but does that mean those others, in this instance, girls, don’t have the opportunity to learn such things? Perhaps if we provided students with rich and engaging opportunities that foster their understanding of what they are learning, they will perhaps become more deeply involved with the subject matter. This might be the step in the right direction to support both girls and boys positive attitudes about technology and will therefore assist in their understanding of the subjects that they are learning.
I think that part of the problem with girls studying math and technology is also a cultural attitude. When I was going to school ( many years ago and overseas) all the students had to take the same classes every year ; everyone had to take physics, calculus, and all the same science classes. I was an ok student but for some reason I did incredibly well in physics and loved it. This made me fall in love with math and science. If I had had a choice perhaps I would not have taken it. I think somehow it has been ingrained in girls that math is a boys subject and that it is very hard.
Blake I have to disagree with you. I think that girls are girls and boys are boys from day one and there is very little that the parents can do to change that. (I am a parent of 2 boys and I have 6 nieces). However, we can help change the attitude that is impeding girls form feeling competent in math and science.
I am glad that we all future teachers are having to read this articles because it really makes us think on how we as teachers can use technology in schools. We all agree technology is critical in today’s schools but we need to demonstrate that the teaching has to come from us, the trained teachers, and that technology only adds some value.
I agree with Vivian that “educators cannot become comfortable in the traditional ways of teaching. They should become their student’s advocates in obtaining the appropriate digital media to their students’ needs. They should claim for better and continuing training on how to better use technology in the classroom”. Regardless of where we teach we need to be advocates for our students so that they get the education they need. I work in a special education program and I am very familiar with having to fight to get what the students need. We should think about social and economical inequalities the same way and become comfortable advocating for the kids’ right to a better education.
While reading about the gender gap in technology, I was reminded of a very similar argument that was made when I was in high school, which was more males were in AP math and science classes than females. The lack of females within computer programming and engineering classes is essentially an extension of the former debate.
While pursuing my undergraduate degree in cognitive psychology, we touched on this topic of male vs. female brains. It is safe to say that not all, but many, female's brains are not programmed to enjoy these mathematical based sciences the same way as the male's brain.
Teaching early childhood makes this natural divide apparent. The differences in the students' block building skillset is profound.
Nearly all of the male students are building elaborate structures, often using a method of trial and error to discover how to best make a structure that is stable and operational. The females are noticably different. This past school year we only had one female that would willingly build with the blocks. When it was an assignment for all the females to build with the blocks, their structures were flat on the floor and often were created to enhance their dramatic play. We found that the females were, by enlarge, less likely to use a trial and error method to make their structures more elaborate. Instead, it appeared that they were easily frustrated when they could not get their structure to stand on it's own, thus resorting to placing all the blocks flat.
The beauty about computers and technology is how we are able to adapt them for all needs. With the development of web 2.0 and all the social networking sites, girls seem to be into using computers nearly the same as boys.
Technology is beginning to adapt to reach a clientele that is more interested in the social uses than the purely mathematical uses. Girls are now being introduced to computers and unlike previous years when it was tedious work, many of the applications are entertaining for the female population.
I find this the be very uplifting news. By captivating the female audience with the social platforms, it is now much more hopeful that girls will be interested in learning more about computers and how to make what they love even better.
I wanted to comment on two things that I read about this interesting topic. I do agree wholeheartedly with Christine M that “If you have engaged teachers, you have engaged students. Now, that said, you can have teacher burn-out, if teachers are not supported by the admistration. Teacher responsibilities are enormous and need to be supported to be successful educators.” Teachers cannot be left to go it alone. I think that the advent of these new Web 2.0 collaborative tools can help keep teachers connected, even if only virtually.
Secondly, Christine said that she saw differences in how young boys and girls learned. Boys were more actively engaged in “building elaborate structures, often using a method of trial and error to discover how to best make a structure that is stable and operational. The females are noticeably different. “She observed that “the females were, by enlarge, less likely to use a trial and error method to make their structures more elaborate. Instead, it appeared that they were easily frustrated when they could not get their structure to stand on its own”. I read an article titled “With Boys and Girls in Mind” that basically reinforced that idea. Boys’ brains have more areas that are used for spatial-mechanical functioning. They like to move things around. Girls’ brains have more detailed memory storage and they develop areas of their brain for verbal functioning much earlier than boys. The point of the article was that with the right teaching methods, like the Project Based Learning model identified in “Closing the Gender Gap”, those differences can be minimized and no subject will be too difficult to learn. It all comes down to knowing your students and have the tools to engage them.
Ms. McGrath’s statement, “[it] was not primarily a problem girls have with the field of math, but in fact a problem they have with the traditional method of teaching math (McGrath, 2004),” really struck a chord in me. While I do not feel moved to agree with her gender-based stances, I do agree that most often it is not solely the content with which the students have difficulty, but the method of teaching as well. This is where the use of multiple technological mediums works nicely. This is as Warren and Tillberg remarked in that “researchers often fail to ask the question of quality: how is the technology being used in the classroom and to enhance learning (Warren & Tillberg, 2005).” Technology should be seen in the classroom as an instrument for enhancement, instead of just a tool. In my mind, it is not that there is a gender divide occurring for the girls. Rather I feel it’s a lack of exposure to the magnitude of technological options provided for them. Despite gender, or even age for that matter, once a student is inspired by the use of technology – whether it’s photography, program writing, digital design, video recording and editing, audio tools, etc. – their mindset about the use of it will forever be changed. This remains true for the case of digital equity. Despite the barriers of accessing the equipment, Warren and Tillberg make a valid point that the student has to “recognize the educational value of using technology (Warren & Tillberg, 2005).” There needs to be not only equal access for all students to achieve their potential in this technological world, but there needs to be accountability that the programming being provided to them is one of quality as well.
References:
MacGillis, A. (2004, September 21). Law, software fuel new 'digital divide'. The Baltimore Sun .
McGrath, D. (2004, March). Closing the Gender Gap. Learning & Leading with Technology , pp. 28 - 31.
Warren, K., & Tillberg, H. (2005). SITE Conference Presentation: Striving For Digital Equity.
I agree with Blake's post about the two sentences in the Gender Gap article. That was where I had issues with Ms. McGrath's article as well. We all know that there are fundimental differences between the ways males and females think, but to make the statement that girls are the only ones to want more out of their education is ridiculous. If educators approach a classroom believing that the girls will only approach techonology one way and the boys will only approach technology a certain way, it would make perfect sense that a gender gap would be formed. However, it is my hope, that most educators do not enter the classroom with such technological biases. It must be remembered that each individual student - despite age, gender, or economic status - begins as a blank slate in terms of their exposure to technology, and that true digital equity starts in that very moment.
Reading these articles really sparked different thoughts and feelings inside of me. I beleive that there is a divide in many things, technology, gender, SES, etc. I found the "Closing the Gender Gap" to be interesting because being a female I feel like I am more aware of it. I remember in highschool, the only business class that was filled with an even ratio was the intro to typing, and the reason for that was because it was mandatory to all students. As the classes advanced there were less females in the class. However, I believe that it is changing,and more females are finding their way into the business and technology world.
I work in psychitric hospital, so in response to the "divides", yes I see them everyday. In terms of race, the children on our unit are mainly African Americn, so when we do get a cacausain child, s/he is the minority. In terms of gender, absolutley! The majority of the children we get are 95% males who have come from homes where they have no father figure and their mother's are the authortative figure. The majority of our staff is females, and unfortunately the children appear to respond better when a male presence is near and redirecting them. That for me is very frustrating. In terms of SES, I feel like it's more with where the childrn come from and where the staff comes from. Many of these children live in the inner city like the Bronx, and to hear that sometimes they don't get fed a home or they have to sleep with their 3 other siblings in the same bed. So to hear that, it breaks your heart b/c is something that I was never exposed to but it is unfortunately out there.
The best way that I know how to address these issues is by talking to the staff and to the children. When the children respond better to the males than females, I will flat out ask them why that is, and normally they are honest and say, "because I'm scared of ...., he looks big". I think that it's important to discuss these issues not only with your co-workers but with your students as well so they are aware of what's going on.
Roni made an excellent point about teachers and their responsibilities with closing the gender gap in technology and education. Yes, it is the responsibility of teachers to try and eliminate this gap but there are many more issues that teachers deal with that makes it difficult. I think if teachers aren't supported by the administration it is a very difficult obstacle to maneuver around. Also, particularly in urban schools there are a plethora of other issues that teachers focus on and I don't think that closing the gender gap in tech ed is their main priority. As I said earlier, behavioral issues and management seem to come to the forefront of their time. Trying to pinpoint an exact solution to this is nearly impossible but I think it needs to originate from the board of education or even the state department of education. They place so much responsibility on the teachers that it makes it difficult for teachers to find time to devote to each issue.
I have to say I agree with what Kate had stated. I think that as teachers, we need to make sure that we implement technology appropriately and expect the same for every student. We can't expect certain things from students based on their gender, race, or class. As a teacher, part of your job is to inspire students and make them passionate about things even if it's just one student. I think it's sad that a teacher would take that away from a student because of technological biases.
While I don't necessarily think that the year of the article has any real relevance (while the technology might be more advanced, the same paradigm remains today as it did then), I think that to some extent technology has taken over for 'good teaching', as was point out in the article by Warren and Tillberg. If the technology is being used in place of/to cover for teachers that aren't masters of their content area, then, while scores might go up, we are not teaching kids how to reason, just how to respond to static questions. In my mind, while I could discuss the virtues of how far we've come technology since I graduated high school (not all that long ago in 99), I would be missing the point. If we don't have high qualified teachers who can teach WITHOUT the technology and still stimulate kids ability to learn, all of the billions of dollars spent will, in my mind, go to waste.
After reading the three articles, I have two comments pertaining to economic disparity and gender. I have seen great economic disparity within schools. Federal laws are not even applied equally, so access to technology is certainly not equal. Besides lack of access, the teachers were overloaded (for example, 30 special ed students to one special ed teacher),so incorporating educational technology to enhance learning was not a consideration, since the students were getting minimal or no individualized focus to begin with. Having said that, it was interesting to me that the article describing schools spending millions on technology didn't get impressive results, but the school that spent less and used it less resulted in better academic performance. The other thing that struck me was the gender article. When I got to the part about the teachers modifying the social, physical and cognitive space in order to get more active and effective participation from the girls, it reminded me of a study done where researchers went into classrooms without teachers knowing the study subject and it was discovered that the teachers were treating the boys differently than the girls. When the results were conveyed to the teachers and modifications made the girls became more active participants in the class. So, perhaps teachers need to be aware of gender differences and their expectations and gender based interactions to optimize participation by girls in their classrooms.
Of the other comments, the one that most struck me was Victoria addressing the issue that technology is not a replacement for a good teacher and the need for teacher-student interaction in the learning process. I agree strongly with this position, particularly in the younger grades and for those students with learning difficulties. In one of the articles, the most detailed and successful example was Howard County. Despite the affluence of that county, the article states they are not overloaded with technology, as the lower income districts attempt. Instead, when a student is having difficulties they devote a lot of person power: developing a student support plan, including one-on-one tutoring, a specialized curriculum, and after school classes. Also, the county recognizes that technology software can't diagnose what's causing the learning difficulty. I was surprised to find out from these articles that the software being marketed to schools is not very effective. Perhaps schools need to train someone to be well informed about that market, so they can seek out the smaller, more effective program, rather than the school waiting for the well funded software company to send out their sales people. In any case, as the teacher states at the end of the article referred to previously, "the needs of your kids are always going to be a little different than what the software vendors are thinking".
Post a Comment