I found this post this morning on adding voice comments to Google Docs, and immediately thought, “What a great way to provide some formative feedback to students!” For those of us who lament the inability to markup Google Docs beyond adding text comments or changing font colors, this provides a great way to add more thorough feedback to students, without worrying about cluttering up student work. Fantastic!
Last week I attended the YOUmedia webinar hosted by the Connected Learning group entitled “Teens, Digital Media, and the Chicago Public Library: A Study of YOUmedia’s Progress” (view the webinar here). Probably my favorite thing about the YOUmedia project is its devotion to creating informal learning spaces for students to both engage in academic work, and in multiple forms of cultural participation. But whereas this sounds on its face like a typical library media center, the YOUmedia project has done a couple of things to set itself apart from other learning commons.
First: variety. YOUmedia offers structured programs and unstructured activities. It also serves as just a hangout spot for teens. This means that, on any given day, students can connect with their peers, explore a range of digital media production tools, engage with mentors, attend a creative writing workshop, and move between these “spaces” at will. Taken in bulk, this variety provides the youth that visit the YOUmedia center a sense of autonomy and community. They can move between learning spaces on their own terms, and use the resources provided to develop their own interests.
Second: the YOUmedia project provides a performance space for youth, and actively provides opportunities for youth to connect, learn from each other, and collaborate on their performances (think of an informal grad school seminar). The investment YOUmedia has made in supporting teens and their interests seems to have paid dividends in terms of building a community where people feel welcome, encouraged, and empowered to own a voice.
Take a look at the webinar to hear from the YOUmedia project coordinators themselves. This is inspiring work.
For those of you who missed the opening prayer during last Friday’s professional day, Beth Forbes and I put together a brief video to showcase some of the work this semester’s iPad Pilot teachers (Annie Burridge, Dale Bryant, Susan Bavaro, and Stephanie Giglio) have been doing in their classes. You can watch the video above, or simply go to http://www.youtube.com and search for “SJP iPad Pilot”.
Following Shelly Tochluk’s presentation on Witnessing Whiteness, the pilot teachers (Elizabeth Solomon, Mark McManmon, Br. Bob Flaherty, Dale Bryant, Stephanie Giglio, and Susan Bavaro – Annie was off campus) assembled in Campus Ministry without about 30 of our colleagues to discuss the iPad program, technical issues they and their students have experienced in class over the semester, and some of the rationale for going 1:1. Thanks to everyone who participated. The group received some very thought-provoking questions from the crowd, and offered candid, insightful responses in return. Topics ranged from specific apps, to going paperless, to issues with wireless, to shifts in pedagogy. It was a fantastic discussion!
Several EdTech blog posts over the past week on the recent Pew research study “How Teachers Are Using Technology at Home and in Their Classrooms” (Purcell, Heaps, Buchanan, and Friedrich, 2013) and the reported impact access to internet and digital technologies is having on students who come from various socioeconomic environments. Access and teacher training are commonsense barriers to narrowing the technology literacy gap that have been well documented over the past 13 years, but almost two decades after the concept “Digital Divide” was first introduced into the vernacular of education, we still seem to struggle to come to a consensus on how to talk about the it, why it continues to persist, and how we can begin to narrow it. The Digital Divide is a complex issue, and I fear that if we don’t first acknowledge that complexity, all of us in education are doomed to reproduce its causes and effects. With that in mind, I want take a look at some of the data from the Pew report and tease out some potential issues to explore.
What’s evident from the Pew study is that teachers feel too strapped for time to learn new digital tools and simultaneously stay on top of their subject content, nonetheless develop meaningful technology integration strategies for their instruction. This is particularly evidenced in urban schools, where teachers report less use of tablet computers, e-readers, and cell phones for instruction than their counterparts in more affluent schools, report more frequently that cell phones are a “major distraction” in class, and finally, report greater pressure to teach to state- and standardized assessments. Looking beyond the surface causes of these findings begins to reveal a picture of urban education that shouldn’t surprise anyone, yet highlights a persistent, systemic problem: namely, institutionalized constraints on students’ social practices.
Managing student cell phone use
The topic of student cell phone use in schools seems to be a particularly pervasive controversy, but as the study shows, many schools are beginning to see the value in using smart phones and other personal devices as important educational resources. Yet as these same schools are loosening the constraints on in-class cell phone use, urban and low-socioeconomic schools are slow to adopt similar measures.
In terms of students’ socioeconomic status, teachers of upper and upper middle class students are the most likely to say their students use cell phones in class to find information. About half (52%) of these teachers report their students using cell phones this way, compared with just 35% of teachers of the lowest income students.
But why the difference? Again, we can speculate that teacher training and time constraints might factor largely in how and when teachers decide to utilize personalized devices for learning and instruction, but teachers’ perceptions of personalized devices appear to have a larger impact on student cell phone use in class.
Teachers whose students come mainly from low income homes are also slightly more likely than other teachers to describe managing student cell phone use as a “major issue” (31% say this vs. 24% of those whose students are mainly from upper income households).
Notice that what isn’t provided in the study is what teachers mean by “major issue,” or what constitutes a “distraction”. Slews or studies and theories that have been developed over the past 50 years have deconstructed similar data and terminology to reflect socio-cultural bias and the privileging of dominant discourses in educational settings, so to take these results at face value seems to miss some of the point. Are students in poor and urban schools just more distracted by technology than their affluent peers? Or do these results suggest something about the way “distraction” is perceived and disciplined in low-income schools? Notice also the word “slightly” used to qualify the difference reported between lower- and upper-income families here. Is this to suggest that the results are statistically insignificant, or just not alarmingly divergent?
Pressure to teach to assessments
The results from the study also suggest that pressure to teach to assessments has a large impact on how teachers integrate technology into instruction. Not surprisingly, low-socioeconomic and urban students seem to feel this impact the most:
Teachers of the lowest income students are most likely to say that pressure to teach to assessments, a lack of resources among students, and a lack of technical support are “major challenges” to incorporating more digital tools into their teaching.
Teachers in urban and poor communities are historically more reliant on federal and local funding for resources, and thus must demonstrate adequate yearly progress on assessments to receive the funding they need to staff their schools with qualified teachers, and to procure up-to-date technology and classroom materials. As well, urban and poor schools are notorious hotbeds for debates on teacher accountability and its connection to teacher compensation. What’s further, schools that feel such pressure from state and federal governments tend to pass down that pressure onto their teachers and students, who often must adhere to strict curriculum frameworks designed by committees of non-teaching politicians. Under such circumstances, teachers feel they have little flexibility to experiment with new technologies or instructional methods. Should it then be any surprise that cell phones and other personal devices – new technologies that have not been well-established as hard and fast learning tools are less commonly utilized in poor and urban schools? Is it also possible that the same teachers who feel a heightened sense of pressure to teach to assessments are more likely to see personalized technology as a “distraction” from traditional classroom learning?
Finally, it appears from the Pew study that institutional policies regarding internet filtering, cell phone use on school grounds, and acceptable use are only compounding the issues noted above.
AP and NWP teachers working in urban areas and those teaching the lowest income students are feeling the impact of these restrictions more so than those living in other community types and those teaching students from mainly upper and upper middle income households. In particular, teachers of the lowest income students are at least twice as likely as those teaching the most affluent students to report each of these policies having a “major” impact on their teaching.
While it is safe to assume that not all schools share the same filtering, cell phone, and acceptable use policies, it remains largely unclear just what is being filtered or restricted, and why such constraints are impeding instruction. Is it possible that poor schools place higher restrictions on accessing social media and political/local/non-academic organizations than wealthier schools? Is it also possible that teachers in poor schools have a greater desire to utilize such sites to make learning more relevant and engaging for their students, and are thus more likely to report filtering as a more impactful barrier to technology integration? Research on sociocultural learning over the past twenty years has demonstrated that resources such as social media, and culturally-relevant artifacts such as web sites, can be important tools for expanding the action possibilities for marginalized students. So, why are these tools being restricted in environments that benefit from accessing them the most?
Connected, not isolated problems
My fear is that the way the Pew study treats these issues seems to belie them as isolated, and separate from each other in their impact on student learning. Understandably, it complicates the picture greatly to try and tease out their connections. But without doing so, we are merely treating the symptoms of the problem, and not addressing its causes.
Empowerment is about equipping students with the skills they need to improve their lives. Hence it means being able to create one’s own learning opportunities, to develop relevant job skills, to know how to build a tool for a specific purpose when no other tool is available. One of the most exciting things about technology today is that student have access to an unprecedented number of tools, and the quality of these tools is incredible. Just take the common smart phone, which students can use to access the internet, build peer networks, participate in cultural events (e.g., crowdsourcing data, political and civic engagement, etc.). Are we empowering our students if we ignore these tools, or actively foreclose opportunities for students to engage with them?