|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Research summary
To optimize the return on your technology investment, make sure all students and teachers have easy, reliable access to technology that supports learning goals. While some school districts work to improve access within the traditional school day and setting, many schools and their surrounding communities have acknowledged the importance of increased technological skill and access for all community members and are working to expand them beyond these traditional boundaries. Schools, libraries, and community centers are quickly becoming the frontline of technology access for all residents (Bagasao, Macias, Jones, & Pachon, 1999). Rockman (1998) describes four barriers to learning that can be reduced or removed through increased access to telecommunications and technology. These include the barriers of geography, economic status, individual learning styles, and special needs. Thornburg (2000) describes how increased access to information transforms things we already know and requires lifelong learning. He comments that "one of the great promises of educational technology is that it makes available to all what was once only available to a few (p. 5)." Jones, Valdez, Mowakowski, and Rasmussen (1995) help us understand access through four indicators. They say a technology-enhanced program has high access when it has connectivity, ubiquity, interconnectivity, and is used equitably. These authors define connectivity as the ability to access rich resources within and beyond the school. Technology is considered ubiquitous when hardware and software are readily available to students and teachers for problem solving, communication, collaboration, and data exchange. Interconnectivity occurs when students and teachers communicate and collaborate in diverse ways using technology. Finally, when technology gives everyone access to rich and challenging learning opportunities, its use is considered equitable. Access to technology is often discussed as a ratio of students to computer. In Getting America's Students Ready for the 21st Century, the U.S. Department of Education (1996) stated that, to make technology a viable instructional tool, all students -- including students with disabilities -- must have easy access to modern multimedia computers. The Department's goal for the year 2000 was five students for every modern multimedia computer in every school. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2000), we may have realized that goal. In a representative sample of 1,000 public schools, the national ratio of students to instructional computer was 6:1 in 1999, virtually the same as the previous year.
School access to the Internet continues to increase. The percentage of schools connected to the Internet has increased from 35 percent in 1994 to 95 percent in 1999. The percentage of instructional classrooms connected to the Internet increased from 3 percent to 63 percent in the same five-year period. The ratio of students to instructional computer connected to the Internet improved from 12:1 in 1998 to 9:1 in 1999. Demographic characteristics influenced variations with this national average. Medium-sized and large schools had more students per Internet computer (9:1) than small schools (6:1). Urban schools had more students per Internet computer (11:1) than rural schools (7:1). And, schools with the highest concentration of poverty had the greatest number of students per Internet computer (16:1) compared to schools with the lowest concentration of poverty (7:1) (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000).
In an effort to revise and update the National Technology Goals from 1996, the U.S. Department of Education convened the Forum on the Future of Technology in Education (http://www.air.org/forum/). Priorities emerging from this forum no longer discuss student to computer ratios but speak in terms of universal access: all students and teachers will have access to effective information technology in their classrooms, schools, communities, and homes (Levin & Darden, 1999). Additional priorities support:
The goal of universal access incorporates more than students and teachers. Universal access holds that learning can and should be supported through the richness of networked technology not only in schools but wherever learning can take place -- libraries, museums, community centers, and the home.
Support for universal access is widespread (Cartwright, 1996; Jones et al, 1995; Panel on Educational Technology, 1997; Thornburg, 2000). Many believe that universal access will provide equal learning opportunities for all students -- or at least equal access to learning resources. Indeed, some suggest that providing all students and teachers access to technology resources, perhaps through the use of low-cost portable computers, can support a paradigm shift in the way computers are used in schools, a shift described as early as 1980 by Seymour Papert (Robertson, Calder, Fung, Jones & O'Shea. 1997).
Included in the concept of universal access is access for learners with special needs. Planning for special needs students includes those with disabilities and gifted and talented students (Anderson, 1996a). Students with disabilities receive learning support from a variety of adaptive technologies. Such hardware and software tools may include speech synthesizers, larger monitors, touch screens, scanners with scan-reading software, voice recognition systems, speech output devices, keyboard of various sizes, trackballs, joysticks, and Morse Code sip and puff switches (Anderson, 1996a). The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) (http://www.cast.org/) promotes the concept of universal design, which endorses the creation of learning environments that provide alternatives for students, teachers, and parents with different backgrounds, learning styles, abilities, and disabilities. Universal design does not suggest that one solution will work for everyone, but that the learning environment must remain flexible to include as wide an audience as possible.
Dede (1998) reminds us that focusing on access and literacy alone won't take us to educational equity. He suggests the real issue in equity is empowerment. Information technology can empower dispossessed groups to achieve their goals. Dede also notes that, from a historical perspective, innovative information technologies often widen inequities when first introduced. The resulting segregation by commodity is reduced only after the technologies mature, drop in price, and are widely adopted. This segregation of the technology-rich and the technology-poor is often called the "digital divide."
This term most often refers to access to the Internet and its origin is often attributed to the cost of technologies; however, the concept is much broader. While many communities are familiar with home computers, mobile phones, and Internet access, many low-income neighborhoods have had little exposure to devices now considered "low-tech," such as laser scanners at supermarkets and automatic teller machines (Benton Foundation, 1998). The divide can be deepest in low-income neighborhoods that do not have an adequate telecommunications infrastructure. The lack of Internet access and basic phone service leads to the greater problem of making an area less attractive for businesses that demand a robust telecommunications infrastructure (Benton Foundation, 1998).
The Department of Commerce (1995, 1998, 1999) has been tracking and reporting on the digital divide for several years. Its most recent (1999) report announced that access to computers and the Internet has increased dramatically in all demographic groups and geographic locations. At the end of 1998, more than 40 percent of all American households had a computer and 25 percent had access to the Internet. Phone penetration has increased, as well, especially among those who were less likely to have phones previously -- young and minority households in rural areas.
Whites are more likely to have access to the Internet from home than are Blacks and Hispanics from any location -- home, school, or community centers. Blacks and Hispanics are also less likely to have Internet access at home than are Americans of Asian/Pacific Islander descent.
Income and education levels also affect access. Regardless of income, rural Americans are less likely to have Internet access than urban dwellers. In households with incomes of $75,000 or more, the divide between Whites and Blacks actually decreased considerably between 1997 and 1998. If this continues to hold and the price of access decreases, the disparity between race and access to the Internet may lessen even more (Department of Commerce, 1999).
A recent survey by National Public Radio (NPR, 2000) provides similar findings concerning computer use and ownership. Income and education affect computer use. Americans under age 60 with annual incomes under $30,000 or with a high school education or less are least likely to use a computer at either home or work. There exists a 17 percent gap in home-computer ownership between low-income Blacks and low-income Whites; however, these differences virtually disappear in high-income households, much like the Internet access findings previously mentioned.
This poll also found some good news. Computer ownership is up among groups previously identified as less likely to be computer owners. First-time computer owners in the past two years under age 60 are more likely than long-term owners to be low-income and to have a high school education or less (NPR, 2000).
Schools are an important ingredient for improving access and reducing the digital divide for school-age children. Despite the disparity of access to computers at home, this survey found that 55 percent of White children, 60 percent of Black children, 56 percent of students from high-income households, and 59 percent of students from low-income households now use computers at school (NPR, 2000). This success in providing access to technology has prompted leaders to encourage schools, libraries, community organizations, and agencies to work together to ensure that entire families have access to technology.
As access to computers and the Internet increases, a different issue gains importance. The Children's Partnership (2000) has expressed concerns that much Internet content has little value to many of the low-income and underserved populations that have recently gained access. Current barriers to use of content include:
Communities may choose from several strategies for reducing the digital divide. Schools, libraries, and community centers can serve as important community access points to computers and the Internet (Bagasao, Macia, Jones, & Pachon, 1999; Department of Commerce, 1999). Rockman (1998) further notes that some communities have after-school programs that provide instruction and support as well as access, and some schools provide children from disadvantaged families the opportunity to have a computer at home through loan, subsidized purchases, or low-cost computers that have been reconditioned.
To help address inequities of Internet content, the Children's Partnership (2000) suggests communities start to address their information concerns by exploring their own community values and developing their own content and community resources. More global strategies include supporting communities as they develop more effective on-line content through finding resources, marketing the content, and carrying out research and development.
Finally, technology itself may be used to address factors that have promoted the disparity of access. As part of an effort to address the problems of chronic poverty, technology may be used to facilitate the exchange of ideas vital to building community. Technology can help social service agencies reach a broader audience and can empower individuals and groups by supporting new venues of public discourse. New and emerging technologies could support communities in their endeavors to combat problems related to housing, crime, and health concerns, among others (Benton Foundation, 1998).
The school network can be a powerful agent in support of education reform (Carlitz & Hastings, 1995). A network that provides easy access to finding, creating, and storing information resources will allow students and teachers to produce materials, collaborate, and share resources. A network can help end the isolation of remote students and teachers and can promote equity of access to on-line resources. The success of such a network will depend upon ease of access, flexibility, and affordability (Carlitz & Hastings, 1995).
The school network should integrate data, voice, and video components and should extend to every school and library in the district (Anderson, 1996a). Such a network may also provide distance learning opportunities for students, as well as professional development opportunities for staff. After all, professional development will be required to achieve maximum benefit from the network investment (Honey & Hawkins, 1999).
Kozma and Schank (1998) suggest installing the highest speed Internet connection that can be afforded and investigating the possibility of a wireless network-at least a wireless local area network, which can integrate support services for hand-held, laptop, desktop, and even wearable technologies. Satellite and wireless broadband services (fast Internet connection) have potential for rural areas, as the distance has no affect on cost (National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 2000).
Connectivity to and between schools, libraries, and other education centers means little if there is no useful content. Unlike print resources, resources stored in digital archives offer opportunities for students and teachers to mold and even create content and to express understanding of content in multiple formats. Honey and Hawkins (1999) describe the potential of digital archives to achieve four goals:
Honey and Hawkins (1999) further describe three key design considerations for digital archives. They suggest that the publishing industry is dominated by a mindset that discourages inventiveness in students and teachers and makes products that are "teacher proof." Digital content, however, allows experimentation in selection, format, and presentation. Teachers can use these resources in ways that make sense to them. This concept of teacher ownership is the first important design principle proposed by the authors.
In order to increase student engagement, the second design principle says that designers of digital archives must consider the cognitive, social, and emotional stages of development of the potential users. The authors suggest that the students and teachers themselves are the best sources for assessing these developmental levels. Finally, to make the best use of digital resources, teachers and students need to be able to build their own approaches to searching and organizing archived materials. Indexing schemes that work well for a scientist or researcher may not be useful in a classroom (Honey & Hawkins, 1999).
Choosing the most appropriate network connection may be difficult, and the options all bear different price tags. Kozma and Schank (1998) suggest installing the highest speed Internet connection that is affordable, but some options aren't available everywhere. Lower bandwidth connections cost less than faster, more powerful broadband options, but the lower bandwidth involves a tradeoff in terms of time required to access materials and the complexity of information that may be transmitted (Consortium for School Networking, 1999).
Rural areas lag behind urban areas in broadband availability. However, rural towns are more likely to have broadband connections than residents outside of towns. These "last mile" households pose a difficult problem for broadband deployment. Urban areas enjoy such broadband options as digital subscriber line (DSL) and cable modems, with cable modems the most widely deployed service. As mentioned, satellite and wireless access may be options for some rural areas. (National Telecommunications and Information Association, 2000).
The solution to the access puzzle is unique to each district. The well-defined technology plan will describe desired learning goals that will help you make decisions concerning options and funding to bring your vision to reality.
Anderson, L. (1996). Guidebook for developing an effective instructional technology plan, Version 2.0. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University.
Bagasao, P. Y., Macias, E., Jones, S., & Pachon, H. P. (1999). Challenges to bridging the digital divide: Building better on ramps to the information highway (Policy Brief). The Tomás Rivera Policy Institute. Available: http://www.trpi.org/dss/policybrief.html
Benton Foundation. (1998). Losing ground Bit by Bit: Low-Income Communities in the Information Age. Washington, DC: Benton Foundation.
Carlitz, R. & Hastings, E. (1995). Building the information driveway: how to make school networking universally available. The Future of Networking Technology for Learning. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Available: http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Futures/carlitz.html
Cartwright, P. G. (1996). Planning for academic computing: Important trends and issues. Change, 28(4), 57-59. Available: http://static.elibrary.com/c/change/july171996/planningforacademiccomputingimportanttrendsandissu/
Children's Partnership. (2000). Online content for low-income and undeserved Americans: the Digital Divide's new frontier. Santa Monica, CA: Author. Available: http://www.childrenspartnership.org/
Consortium for School Networking. (1999). Taking TCO to the classroom. A school administrator's guide to planning for the total cost of new technology. Washington, DC: Consortium for School Networking. Available: http://classroomtco.cosn.org/news.html#release
Dede, C. (1998) The scaling-up process for technology-based educational innovations. In C. Dede (Ed.), Learning with Technology. 1998 ASCD Yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 199-215. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416 857)
Honey, M. & Hawkins, J. (1995). Digital archives: Creating effective designs for elementary and secondary educators. The Future of Networking Technologies for Learning. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Available: http://www.ed.gov/Technology/Futures/honey.html
Jones, B. F., Valdez, G. Nowakowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1995). Plugging in: Choosing and using educational technology. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Available: http://www.ncrtec.org/capacity/plug/plug.htm
Kozma, R. & Schank, P. (1998). Connecting with the 21st Century: Technology in support of educational reform. In C. Dede (Ed.), Learning with Technology. 1998 ASCD Yearbook. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 416 857)
Levin, D. & Darden, C. (1999). Forum on technology in education: Envisioning the future. Proceedings of the Forum on Technology in Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Available: http://www.air.org/forum/wpapers.htm
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teacher use of computers and the Internet in public schools. (NCES 2000-090).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration. (2000). Advanced telecommunications in rural America: The challenge of bringing broadband service to all Americans. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/ruralbb42600.pdf
NPR. (2000). Survey shows widespread enthusiasm for high technology. National Public Radio. Available: http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/poll/technology
Panel on Educational Technology. (1997, March). Report to the President on the use of technology to strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/NSTC/PCAST/k-12ed.html
Robertson, S., Calder, J., Fung, P., Jones, A., O'Shea, T. (1997). The use and effectiveness of palmtop computers in education. British Journal of Educational Technology; 28(3), 177-89.
Rockman, S. (1998). Leader's guide to education technology. Washington, DC: Edvancenet. Available: http://www.edvancenet.org/ax/metacontent_fs.html?res*guide
Thornburg, D. (2000). Technology in K-12 education: Envisioning a new future. The Forum on Technology in Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Available: http://www.air.org/forum/wpapers.htm
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1995). Falling through the net: A survey of the "have nots" in rural and urban America. Washington, DC: U.S. Author. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1998). Falling through the net: New data on the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/falling.html
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/
U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Getting America's students ready for the 21st Century: Meeting the technology literacy challenge. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/plan/national/index.html
[top] |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
