For our EDUC 504: Teaching with Technology course, our professors recently tasked us with submitting a survey about our placement schools' array of computer and multimedia technology available for students' and teachers' use. The options included in-classroom items such as laptops, a desktop computer, digital photo and video cameras, smartboards, LCD projector, and more. The survey also inquired as to whether these types of equipment could be reserved for use during class time.
Before filling out this survey, I was fairly convinced that my placement school had it pretty well set in terms of being well equipped, technologically speaking. But out of all of the options under the question "What technology is available in your classroom?" only one applied to my placement school: the LCD projector. This is the case for all of our school district's classrooms, as far as I'm aware, and the installation of these projectors took place only very recently. As for the question of what equipment is available for reservation during class time, I responded that our school does have a few laptop carts available for rental.
Our in-class discussion on the similarities and differences among each of our placement schools was both illuminating and frustrating. Other members of my cohort who were in other school districts reported vastly different scenarios. One fellow intern, placed in a suburban school district with a median income higher than that of the city I'm placed in, reported a much higher presence of in-class tools available for use. Another intern, whose placement school is located in a neighboring city with a much lower median income, reported that her school had almost none of the technology mentioned in the survey.
It's a shame. We've been talking so much about the implications of bring-your-own-device policies as those which, at the level of the individual student, have the potential to contribute to the achievement gap a la the Matthew effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect), but we haven't given much conversation to the idea that this phenomenon occurs on the level of the school district and its neighboring districts. By how much is the economic vitality of affluent communities increasing each year because students who have had the benefit of advanced learning tools graduate and begin contributing in meaningful ways to their community? And by how much is the economic vitality of not-so-affluent communities decreasing each year by the inverse principle? I feel that such an inequality can only be remedied by funding at the national level or from private sponsors. How else can we change things? The disparity in school technology among different cities and towns is one of the smaller pieces in this country's growing puzzle of inequalities, but this puzzle -- like all jigsaws -- needs every piece in order to be complete.
Thoughts are welcome.
Well, my big thought on tech in the classroom is this: don't do it through private sponsorship. I'd like to say that companies like Google and the Gates Foundation mean well, but they mean to sell computers; and the experience of many charter schools with private funding is that private funders tend to think that their investment entitles them to input in how students learn. In the case of Google and Gates, I think that the impact is more troublesome and more subtle. Students get access to technology, and they are also subtly instructed in what technology is and isn't good for. They are subtly guided to the websites and apps that are compatible with the Google- and Gates-provided machines. And they are instructed in what innovation looks and feels like, in accordance with whatever Larry Page thinks innovation looks like. The influence is not as overt as the influence that changes biology textbooks and history textbooks, but it is undeniably there, and it will direct the future just as surely.
ReplyDeleteI was also interested to hear all of the other situations regarding technology in our colleagues' placements. Being in an affluent neighborhood in Ann Arbor, the presence of technology in the school is apparent and widely utilized. It's great and all, but like you pointed out, what if this is not the case in a less fortunate district? Or a classroom with less fortunate students? I think most students would have access to cell phones now-a-days, but if this experience teaching has taught me anything it is to not take ANYTHING for granted. However, I think if you're shooting for a method that will allow the most students the opportunity to participate in the assignment/homework/activity/etc, having cell phones as the primary means of participating would be the best way to go. Assuming anything more would inevitably leave a handful (if not more) students out of the picture. No one wants that.
ReplyDeleteHey Matt - I have to say, I was pretty surprised by the results you found from your tech survey at your placement. My school probably has a lower median income and yet we have a netbook provided for every student in our building. In fact, it seems like there's an excess of computers that are not being used. The school district I'm placed at received government funding to supply resources to those who may not have the means to purchase their own. So like you said, maybe we can remedy the inequity by providing resources to those who need it. However, I realize that even when a school is supplied with a lot of great tech devices, it's not enough to just have them in the building. Teachers and students need to learn how to actually use them in a productive way that enhances learning. I've seen teachers with ipads and netbooks in their classrooms, but they're only used to search the web or type up an essay - nothing more. Perhaps it just takes time to get accustomed to having technology and gradually incorporating it into learning experiences for students.
ReplyDelete